From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27148 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2005 20:55:11 -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 27138 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2005 20:55:08 -0000 Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 20:55:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050103205508.27137.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "austern at apple dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050103204404.19243.austern@apple.com> References: <20050103204404.19243.austern@apple.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/19243] Misleading error message for ill-formed explicit destructor invocation X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00265.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From austern at apple dot com 2005-01-03 20:55 ------- Subject: Re: Misleading error message for ill-formed explicit destructor invocation On Jan 3, 2005, at 12:49 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org > 2005-01-03 20:49 ------- > Hmm, I think this is valid code and should not be rejected, see DR 272 > and PR 12333 (which I think this > is a dup of). DR 272 is in "WP" status, meaning it's part of the working paper for C++0x. It's not part of the International Standard ISO/IEC 14882:2003. I couldn't find anything in the standard saying that it was acceptable to write an explicit destructor call using a qualified-id. Did I miss something? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19243