https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48920
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48920
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48920
--- Comment #6 from Johannes Schaub ---
Well then you can replace the class with a nameepace, I think, to remove the
class-scope complication. I think GCC would still incorrectly apply typename
lookup.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48920
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48920
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michele.caini at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48920
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> For the first testcase [basic.scope.class] says no diagnostic required,
> doesn't it?
ok but what about adding an optional one though?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48920
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-26
13:21:27 UTC ---
For the first testcase [basic.scope.class] says no diagnostic required, doesn't
it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48920
--- Comment #1 from Johannes Schaub schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
2011-05-06 23:47:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
[…] As a perhaps related issue, the following looks well-formed:
templatetypename T
void f(typename T::B)
