public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/17395] Incorrect lookup for parameters
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:41:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040910144050.31627.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040910133354.17395.gdr@gcc.gnu.org>
------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-09-10 14:35 -------
Subject: Re: Incorrect lookup for parameters
"bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| I would guess gcc is right:
No, GCC is wrong :-)
We had a thread on this issue on the Core reflector, no later than two
days ago. John Spicer came with the following other example for which
GCC is confused about.
void* a = 0;
void f(int a, int* b = a);
| the names of parameters can't be used
| in the rest of the argument list, can they?
They can be used, except for specifying default arguments -- nothing
in the standard forbid that. The exemption for default arguments was
made explicit. The rest follows from 3.3.1/1
The point of declaration for a name is immediately after its
complete declarator (clause 8) and before its initializer (if any),
except as noted below.
and below, there is no exemption for function parameters.
| Note that this is
| different to template argument lists, in which this is explicitly
| allowed (and the standard writers felt the need to state so in a
| note).
yes, I know. But I also checked with the stadard writers before
reporting the issue here :-) That Comeau online is rejecting #4 is a bug
in EDG front-end -- which, as I understand it will be corrected.
-- Gaby
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-09-10 14:40 -------
> No, GCC is wrong :-)
> We had a thread on this issue on the Core reflector, no later than two
> days ago.
Ah, I should have guessed :-)
In that case, I think I should confirm the bug.
W.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-09-10 14:40:44
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17395
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-10 14:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-10 13:34 [Bug c++/17395] New: " gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-10 13:45 ` [Bug c++/17395] " gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-09-10 14:19 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-09-10 14:35 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-09-10 14:41 ` bangerth at dealii dot org [this message]
2004-12-10 3:08 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-10 4:36 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-12-10 13:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
[not found] <bug-17395-1000@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2006-09-08 17:26 ` amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040910144050.31627.qmail@sourceware.org \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).