http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11764
--- Comment #24 from André Wöbbeking Woebbeking at web dot de 2013-03-15
09:25:02 UTC ---
OK, I read some explanations in the duplicates but still don't know why this
should be valid code. IMO it makes no sense to write A:A:A:B and given the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11764
--- Comment #25 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-15
13:36:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #24)
OK, I read some explanations in the duplicates but still don't know why this
should be valid code.
That is a question
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11764
--- Comment #26 from André Wöbbeking Woebbeking at web dot de 2013-03-15
13:45:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
(In reply to comment #24)
3) some other compiler don't compile this
Which? Recent versions of EDG and clang both accept
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11764
--- Comment #27 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-15
13:49:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
Which? Recent versions of EDG and clang both accept the testcase in comment
22.
MSVC 2010
Other compilers have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11764
--- Comment #22 from André Wöbbeking Woebbeking at web dot de 2013-02-20
16:31:47 UTC ---
Hi,
shouldn't
struct A
{
struct B {};
};
int main()
{
A::A::B b;
}
fail to compile? It compiles with 4.6 and 4.7.
Cheers,
André
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11764
--- Comment #23 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-20
17:03:00 UTC ---
No, that's valid. In the nested-name-specifier the second A only considers
namespaces, types and templates whose specializations are types
--- Comment #21 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-09 02:56
---
*** Bug 43649 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-24 20:55 ---
Subject: Bug 11764
Author: jason
Date: Tue Nov 24 20:55:24 2009
New Revision: 154519
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154519
Log:
PR c++/42137
* parser.c
--- Comment #20 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-24 21:05 ---
Fixed.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11764
--- Comment #18 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 22:57 ---
Mine now.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|gdr at
--- Comment #17 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-16 14:06
---
Gaby, I'm sorry, are you actively working on this issue?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11764
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-16 06:21
---
*** Bug 42064 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2009-06-01 10:28 ---
Ian, I know open source and I also know that some parts are more interesting
than others :-)
Most the time I'm a happy GCC user (sure, it could be faster but that's what
compile farms are for). But this bug is
--- Comment #13 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2009-05-30 08:46 ---
If you're sure that it's a bug why isn't it fixed yet? Is it that hard that you
need more than six years?
Sure it's no show stopper but it's annoying. I'm using -pedantic and -ansi to
ensure platform independent code
--- Comment #14 from ian at airs dot com 2009-05-30 16:03 ---
gcc is a free software project driven largely by volunteers. Interest in
fixing accepts-invalid bugs is generally low; people are generally more
interested in rejects-valid bugs, or in better optimizations, or in avoiding
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-29 15:15
---
*** Bug 40294 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-27 04:10
---
*** Bug 39924 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-11 23:44
---
*** Bug 36501 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-23 05:44 ---
*** Bug 36306 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-10-04 18:46 ---
*** Bug 33659 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-05-08 20:44
---
Still accepts-invalid as of 4.2-20070430 (RC2).
--
fang at csl dot cornell dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
22 matches
Mail list logo
