--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-17 11:04 ---
This is perfectly valid C++.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39205
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-02-17 11:06
---
Yeah...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pgrealis at yahoo-inc dot com 2009-02-17 11:20 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
This is perfectly valid C++.
I never claimed anything different. Is your argument that no warning should be
issued for perfectly valid C++?
(int)1.5 is perfectly valid C++, yet
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-02-17 11:32
---
Refute? This is not philosophy. If the maintainers believe there is nothing
wrong here - and other extremely high-quality C++ front-end agree, by the way -
the issue is closed.
--
paolo dot carlini at
--- Comment #5 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2009-02-17 15:48 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
I can't think of a scenario where one would want to write x.f() over X::f()
when f() is static. I'd like a warning for this so I can catch with -Werror.
FWIW, I've seen x.y when y is a
--- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-02-17 15:51
---
Thanks Martin ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39205
