public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "igodard at pacbell dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/18320] New: version drift 3.4.0->3.4.2?
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:08:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041106210831.18320.igodard@pacbell.net> (raw)

I'm getting user reports of problems compiling constructs like the following on 
3.4.2. I develop on 3.4.0 which is happy with it.

class foo {
const foo* foo;
};

My understanding of the standard was that the new name in a declaration comes 
into scope at the position of the identifier, so there is no ambiguity in the 
two uses of "foo" in the pointer member declaration. This seems to be what 3.4.0 
does. Users report messages like:

/home/art/dev/ootbc/common/include/powerset.hh:289: error: declaration of 
`const powerset<E, alloc>*powerset<E, alloc>::iterator::powerset'
/home/art/dev/ootbc/common/include/powerset.hh:134: error: changes meaning of 
`powerset' from `class powerset<E, alloc>'

for similar constructs in 3.4.2.

I tried this on Comeau, and it may gave broken their compiler: the online system 
reports "compilation failed" but does *not* produce an actual error message.

Does this reflect a bug in 3.4.2 or a fix of 3.4.0?

Ivan

-- 
           Summary: version drift 3.4.0->3.4.2?
           Product: gcc
           Version: 3.4.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: igodard at pacbell dot net
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18320


             reply	other threads:[~2004-11-06 21:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-11-06 21:08 igodard at pacbell dot net [this message]
2004-11-06 21:18 ` [Bug c++/18320] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-31  5:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-31  5:46 ` pinskia 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=20041106210831.18320.igodard@pacbell.net \
    --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).