From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4798 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2005 22:43:12 -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 4751 invoked by uid 48); 14 Sep 2005 22:43:06 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050914224306.4750.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040727131653.16782.bangerth@dealii.org> References: <20040727131653.16782.bangerth@dealii.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg01782.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- 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