From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18652 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2004 17:11:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 18370 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2004 17:11:07 -0000 Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040809171107.18368.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030603112812.11078.jtotland1@chello.no> References: <20030603112812.11078.jtotland1@chello.no> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/11078] [ABI] ICE in write_type with typeof and templates X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00705.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-08-09 17:11 ------- Subject: Re: [ABI] ICE in write_type with typeof and templates "giovannibajo at libero dot it" writes: | (In reply to comment #15) | | > The issue of within is for cases like c. | > The current compiler treats that as being identical to c. | | Question: do we really need typeof()? At some point, the decltype/auto proposal considered that possibility. It has the advantage that it provides a convenient way of having an unnamed typedef and can be used as a simple-type-specifier. Subsequent refeniment did no longer mention it, but nothing is definitive. | It does not make sense to me. It does make sense; see above. | typeof (type) is always "type", so I cannot see why we should wrap | it within a typeof. It does not bring much when "type" is a simple-typecifier. But, it has some value when you consider more elaborated type-specifier. | If GCC currently accepts this, we could | easily flag it as an error and reject it. Gaby? I have no strong opinion but I would lean toward supporting typeof(type), unless it is proven to be really useless. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11078