[Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[bangerth at dealii dot org]

This is spinoff #2 from 16777: we accept this piece of code: 
------------------------ 
struct X { 
    void X::bar() {} 
}; 
------------------------ 
I'm not sure we should. icc8 gives this message: 
g/x> icc -Xc -ansi -c x.cc 
x.cc(2): warning #470: qualified name is not allowed in member declaration 
      void X::bar() {} 
           ^ 
 
 
Can someone point me to the part of the standard that clarifies this? 
 
W.

-- 
           Summary: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
           Product: gcc
           Version: 3.4.1
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: bangerth at dealii dot org
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[lindahl at pathscale dot com]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |lindahl at pathscale dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[giovannibajo at libero dot it]

------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it  2004-08-16 00:25 -------
[dcl.meaning]/1: "A declarator-id shall not be qualified except for the 
definition of a member function (9.3) or static data member (9.4) or nested 
class (9.7) outside of its class, the definition or explicit instantiation of a 
function, variable or class member of a namespace outside of its namespace, or 
the definition of a previously declared explicit specialization outside of its 
namespace, or the declaration of a friend function that is a member of another 
class or namespace."

Confirmed, not a regression.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
           Keywords|                            |accepts-invalid
      Known to fail|                            |2.95.3 3.0.4 3.2.3 3.3.3
                   |                            |3.4.0 3.5.0
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2004-08-16 00:25:30
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-14 22:43 -------
G++ will issue a diagnostic about this usage with -pedantic.

The decision not to issue a diagnostic in the default mode is conscious and
intentional; G++ has historically accepted this code, and there is no semantic
problem with accepting it.  There are some members of the GCC community that are
very much opposed to making the compiler stricter in the default mode.

Jason, Nathan, do you think we should turn this diagnostic on by default (as a
pedwarn), or just close this PR?  If the latter, should we document this extension?

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jason at redhat dot com,
                   |                            |nathan at codesourcery dot
                   |                            |com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[bangerth at dealii dot org]

------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org  2005-09-14 22:57 -------
Well, we've been tightening the compiler in many places. I consider this 
a particularly useless extension -- it's true that it doesn't hurt anyone, 
but it adds nothing whatsoever of value to the language. I would be very 
much surprised if more than a handful of people have ever used it, and I 
can't think of a reason why it would be undue to ask them to fix their 
codes. 
 
In the interest of sticking with the language standards and to simplify the 
compiler, I vote for removing the extension. Even documenting it seems a  
waste of time to me. 
 
W. 

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[gdr at integrable-solutions dot net]

------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  2005-09-14 23:04 -------
Subject: Re:  Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

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

| G++ will issue a diagnostic about this usage with -pedantic.
| 
| The decision not to issue a diagnostic in the default mode is conscious and
| intentional; G++ has historically accepted this code, and there is no semantic
| problem with accepting it.  There are some members of the GCC community that are
| very much opposed to making the compiler stricter in the default mode.
| 
| Jason, Nathan, do you think we should turn this diagnostic on by default (as a
| pedwarn), or just close this PR?  If the latter, should we document
| this extension? 

We should make it a diagnostic and give a switch to people who are
"annoyed" to turn it off.

-- Gaby


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-15 08:59 -------
A pedwarn might be the way to go, but I don't feel strongly about it.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[dank at kegel dot com]

------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com  2005-09-15 12:39 -------
I would dearly love to be able to say -Woverzealous-qualification
or something like that to turn on this warning.
It would make keeping our code portable much easier.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-15 13:04 -------
Dan, why can't you use -pedantic?  That's the best way of avoiding gnuisms.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[dank at kegel dot com]

------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com  2005-09-15 13:09 -------
Pain.  We have a very large application, and we cannot
afford to fix all the warnings -pedantic gives.

This is another case of "we want to turn on and off individual warnings, please".
We're getting mighty tired of having to fix this particular 
problem in our source over and over again every time
we try our app with a non-gcc compiler; pretty please
let us turn this warning on by itself...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[dank at kegel dot com]

------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com  2005-09-15 13:11 -------
Also, the non-gcc compiler we're trying our code with supports
some but not all gnuisms, so -pedantic would actually cause
us to fix much more of our code than is practically neccessary
for the kind of portability we want at the moment.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[jason at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From jason at redhat dot com  2005-09-15 14:23 -------
Subject: Re:  Accepts qualified member function declaration
 in class

I wouldn't mind turning this diagnostic on by default as a pedwarn.  As 
usual, people who want their code to build anyway can use -fpermissive.

I'm strongly opposed to adding a flag for this diagnostic; I don't want 
to use warning flags for things that make the code technically ill-formed.

I'm not particularly sympathetic to Dan's desire to be able to make GCC 
exactly as pedantic as EDG.  If you don't want to deal with all the 
warnings from -pedantic, you can also filter them out with grep.

Jason



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[dank at kegel dot com]

------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com  2005-09-15 16:49 -------
We build everything with -Werror so errors are flagged as
fatal.  If we added -pedantic, we'd have to stop using
-Werror, and implement the fatal error check ourselves in
a wrapper, which would be a huge pain.

gcc-4.1 had a stated goal of giving every warning a name,
and letting them be turned on and off individually.  See
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Warning%20Message%20Control
I thought I was asking for something along the same lines.
I can't understand why anybody would oppose
the ability to turn on and off warnings selectively;
Jason, are you also opposed to that feature of gcc-4.1?

I am all in favor of forcing code to be C++ compliant,
but I have to tell you I just spent the last year
whipping a codebase into shape in that regard, and
I'd really like to be able to pick my battles,
and not have to fight the tools to do so.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[jason at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From jason at redhat dot com  2005-09-15 17:50 -------
Subject: Re:  Accepts qualified member function declaration
 in class

dank at kegel dot com wrote:
> gcc-4.1 had a stated goal of giving every warning a name,
> and letting them be turned on and off individually.
> Jason, are you also opposed to that feature of gcc-4.1?

No.  The difference is that this diagnostic should really be an error, 
we're just making it a pedwarn to allow noncompliant code to build when 
it's clear what it means.

But I suppose if people want to be able to turn pedwarns on and off 
individually under the same scheme, I can accept that.

Jason


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[gdr at integrable-solutions dot net]

------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  2005-09-15 19:33 -------
Subject: Re:  Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

"jason at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

| Subject: Re:  Accepts qualified member function declaration
|  in class
| 
| dank at kegel dot com wrote:
| > gcc-4.1 had a stated goal of giving every warning a name,
| > and letting them be turned on and off individually.
| > Jason, are you also opposed to that feature of gcc-4.1?
| 
| No.  The difference is that this diagnostic should really be an error, 
| we're just making it a pedwarn to allow noncompliant code to build when 
| it's clear what it means.

While I said previously that I would prefer a switch over a documented
extensions; I would also like to point out that pedwarns really are
differents beasts -- and really are errors.  They are not like the
kind of "uninitialized var" warnings.

-- Gaby


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[dank at kegel dot com]

------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com  2005-09-15 21:39 -------
Sounds like we're in violent agreement, then.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-27 23:37 -------
We have consensus to change this to a pedwarn by default; I'll take care of that.

-- 
           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=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-28 14:51 -------
Fixed in 4.1.0.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.1.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-28 14:50 -------
Subject: Bug 16782

CVSROOT:	/cvs/gcc
Module name:	gcc
Changes by:	mmitchel@gcc.gnu.org	2005-09-28 14:50:18

Modified files:
	gcc/cp         : decl.c ChangeLog 
	gcc/testsuite  : ChangeLog 
	gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.law: static-mem5.C 
	gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike: p8154.C 
Added files:
	gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse: qualified4.C 

Log message:
	PR c++/16782
	* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Always pedwarn about overqualified
	member names.
	
	PR c++/16782
	* g++.dg/parse/qualified4.C: New test.
	* g++.old-deja/g++.law/static-mem5.C: Use -w -fpermissive.
	* g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p8154.C: Likewise.

Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/decl.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.1428&r2=1.1429
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.4904&r2=1.4905
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.6110&r2=1.6111
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/qualified4.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.law/static-mem5.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p8154.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.3&r2=1.4



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782

[Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-28 15:13 -------
Fixed in 4.1.0.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782