[Bug c++/14668] New: declaration of `A*B::A' changes meaning of `A' from `class A'...

[Bug c++/14668] New: declaration of `A*B::A' changes meaning of `A' from `class A'...

[pluto at ds14 dot agh dot edu dot pl]

class A {}; 
class B { 
  static A *A; 
}; 
A *B::A = 0; 
 
g++3.4-20040317 compiles code without errors. 
g++3.3 reports error: declaration of `A*B::A' changes meaning of `A' from 
`class A' 
 
which behavior is correct?

-- 
           Summary: declaration of `A*B::A' changes meaning of `A' from
                    `class A'...
           Product: gcc
           Version: 3.4.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: pluto at ds14 dot agh dot edu dot pl
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
 GCC build triplet: pentium3-pld-linux
  GCC host triplet: pentium3-pld-linux
GCC target triplet: pentium3-pld-linux


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14668

[Bug c++/14668] declaration of `A*B::A' changes meaning of `A' from `class A'...

[gdr at integrable-solutions dot net]

------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  2004-03-21 15:13 -------
Subject: Re:  New: declaration of `A*B::A' changes meaning of `A' from `class A'...

"pluto at ds14 dot agh dot edu dot pl" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

| class A {}; 
| class B { 
|   static A *A; 
| }; 
| A *B::A = 0; 
|  
| g++3.4-20040317 compiles code without errors. 
| g++3.3 reports error: declaration of `A*B::A' changes meaning of `A' from 
| `class A' 
|  
| which behavior is correct?

The code is ill-formed.  No diagnostic is required.  GCC used to
diagnose that in the past.  This is a regression.  I would think it is
a serious one (a frequent mistake).

-- Gaby


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14668

[Bug c++/14668] [3.4/3.5 Regression] declaration of `A*B::A' changes meaning of `A' from `class A'...

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |diagnostic
            Summary|declaration of `A*B::A'     |[3.4/3.5 Regression]
                   |changes meaning of `A' from |declaration of `A*B::A'
                   |`class A'...                |changes meaning of `A' from
                   |                            |`class A'...
   Target Milestone|---                         |3.4.1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14668

[Bug c++/14668] [3.4/3.5 Regression] declaration of `A*B::A' changes meaning of `A' from `class A'...

[bangerth at dealii dot org]

------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org  2004-03-24 23:23 -------
Hm, I may be blind today, but I fail to see what may be wrong with this 
code? (Clearly the initialization of the member has nothing to do with 
the problem here.) Gaby, do you refer to the "after declaration, reevaluate 
the declaration with the newly defined name and see whether it is still 
valid" rule? Or what do you refer to in saying that the code is invalid? 
 
W. 

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14668

[Bug c++/14668] [3.4/3.5 Regression] declaration of `A*B::A' changes meaning of `A' from `class A'...

[gdr at integrable-solutions dot net]

------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  2004-03-25 00:22 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.4/3.5 Regression] declaration of `A*B::A' changes meaning of `A' from `class A'...

"bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

| Hm, I may be blind today, but I fail to see what may be wrong with this 
| code? (Clearly the initialization of the member has nothing to do with 
| the problem here.)

Yes, I was not talking about the initialization.

| Gaby, do you refer to the "after declaration, reevaluate 
| the declaration with the newly defined name and see whether it is still 
| valid" rule? 

Yes, that is the one I was referring to.

-- Gaby


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14668

[Bug c++/14668] [3.4/3.5 Regression] no warning anymore for reevaluation of declaration

[bangerth at dealii dot org]

------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org  2004-03-25 04:47 -------
OK, this is most likely a regression with the new parser then. 
Thanks 
W. 

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
      Known to fail|                            |3.4.0 3.5.0
      Known to work|                            |3.3.4
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2004-03-25 04:47:53
               date|                            |
            Summary|[3.4/3.5 Regression]        |[3.4/3.5 Regression] no
                   |declaration of `A*B::A'     |warning anymore for
                   |changes meaning of `A' from |reevaluation of declaration
                   |`class A'...                |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14668

[Bug c++/14668] [3.4/3.5 Regression] no warning anymore for reevaluation of declaration

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-05-24 02:47 -------
Working on a fix.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |mark at codesourcery dot com
                   |dot org                     |
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14668