https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65890
--- Comment #7 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
(In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #5)
Mainly for testing of the conformance.
I don't understand what this means. Testing what? G++? G++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65890
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The purpose of G++ is not a validation tool for finding non-portable code. As I
said, it's to be a useful compiler.
It has always been the policy of G++ (and other compilers!) to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65890
--- Comment #5 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
This was changed by
http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#613
It was a defect in the original standard. What possible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65890
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to frankhb1989 from comment #5)
Mainly for testing of the conformance.
I don't understand what this means. Testing what? G++? G++ does not exist for
you to test its
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65890
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This was changed by
http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#613
It was a defect in the original standard. What possible advantage is there in
rejecting it in C++03
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65890
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65890
--- Comment #2 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
Tested here: http://melpon.org/wandbox/, both G++ 5.1 and 6.0 accepted the
invalid code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65890
--- Comment #1 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
Oops, wrong version of case pasted ... I once wanted to use this minimal one:
sizeof(Tag::m);
Nevertheless, the conclusion is the same for this issue.
(There are other mess, e.g. Clang++ 3.6
