http://www.llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6359
Johannes Schaub <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #2 from Johannes Schaub <[email protected]> 2010-02-21 11:15:07 CST --- (In reply to comment #1) > I committed a temporary workaround from dgregor as r96733. Leaving bug open > until we resolve exactly how function name and class name conflicts here > should > be handled. > > I'm a bit concerned by whether this one is well-formed. After reading > [dcl.typedef] p2 and p4, it seems like even this code is bad: > > struct S { }; > typedef struct S S; // OK > typedef struct S S; // error due to typedef-name in elaborated type specifier? > > Does p4 completely strip the usefulness of p2? I hope I'm missing something. > =D I think your interpretation is correct. See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#407 . -- Configure bugmail: http://www.llvm.org/bugs/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ LLVMbugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmbugs
