[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 --- Comment #19 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:193ef02a7f4f3e5349ad9cf8d3d4df466a99b677 commit r14-6075-g193ef02a7f4f3e5349ad9cf8d3d4df466a99b677 Author: Roger Sayle Date: Sat

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kariya_mitsuru at hotmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Aug 30 11:09:57 2019 New Revision: 275068 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275068=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2018-11-19 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Jan 8 09:52:44 2019 New Revision: 267681 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267681=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2018-11-19 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Nov 19 14:01:56 2018 New Revision: 266275 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266275=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/60994 * g++.dg/lookup/pr60994.C: New test. Added:

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- #c7 got fixed with r244335 aka PR77812 fix, though I'll add that testcase to the testsuite, because the PR77812 tests are different.

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 --- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: jason Date: Tue Apr 14 15:29:21 2015 New Revision: 222094 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222094root=gccview=rev Log: PR c++/60994 * parser.c

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Another example, with a function template: struct s { static int i; }; template typename T int s() { return s::i; } p.cc: In function ‘int s()’: p.cc:9:10: error: ‘s’ is not a

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 --- Comment #9 from Momchil Velikov momchil.velikov at gmail dot com --- https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg00659.html(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) Have you pinged your patch? If a patch isn't reviewed within a week or

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 Ollie Wild aaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||potswa at mac dot com

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 --- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1) Implicit enum to int conversion is not provided for a scoped enumeration. That said it is strange that gcc also rejects a

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 --- Comment #3 from Momchil Velikov momchil.velikov at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1) Implicit enum to int conversion is not provided for a scoped enumeration. This is not the reported error. In fact, the

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 --- Comment #5 from Momchil Velikov momchil.velikov at gmail dot com --- Proposed fix: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg01938.html