public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
@ 2004-07-27 13:16 bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-07-27 13:43 ` [Bug c++/16782] " lindahl at pathscale dot com
` (18 more replies)
0 siblings, 19 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-07-27 13:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
This is spinoff #2 from 16777: we accept this piece of code:
------------------------
struct X {
void X::bar() {}
};
------------------------
I'm not sure we should. icc8 gives this message:
g/x> icc -Xc -ansi -c x.cc
x.cc(2): warning #470: qualified name is not allowed in member declaration
void X::bar() {}
^
Can someone point me to the part of the standard that clarifies this?
W.
--
Summary: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: bangerth at dealii dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2004-07-27 13:43 ` lindahl at pathscale dot com
2004-08-16 0:25 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (17 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: lindahl at pathscale dot com @ 2004-07-27 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |lindahl at pathscale dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-07-27 13:43 ` [Bug c++/16782] " lindahl at pathscale dot com
@ 2004-08-16 0:25 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2005-09-14 22:43 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-08-16 0:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-08-16 00:25 -------
[dcl.meaning]/1: "A declarator-id shall not be qualified except for the
definition of a member function (9.3) or static data member (9.4) or nested
class (9.7) outside of its class, the definition or explicit instantiation of a
function, variable or class member of a namespace outside of its namespace, or
the definition of a previously declared explicit specialization outside of its
namespace, or the declaration of a friend function that is a member of another
class or namespace."
Confirmed, not a regression.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Keywords| |accepts-invalid
Known to fail| |2.95.3 3.0.4 3.2.3 3.3.3
| |3.4.0 3.5.0
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-08-16 00:25:30
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-07-27 13:43 ` [Bug c++/16782] " lindahl at pathscale dot com
2004-08-16 0:25 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2005-09-14 22:43 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-14 22:58 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-14 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-14 22:43 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-14 22:58 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2005-09-14 23:04 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
` (14 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2005-09-14 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-09-14 22:57 -------
Well, we've been tightening the compiler in many places. I consider this
a particularly useless extension -- it's true that it doesn't hurt anyone,
but it adds nothing whatsoever of value to the language. I would be very
much surprised if more than a handful of people have ever used it, and I
can't think of a reason why it would be undue to ask them to fix their
codes.
In the interest of sticking with the language standards and to simplify the
compiler, I vote for removing the extension. Even documenting it seems a
waste of time to me.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-14 22:58 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
@ 2005-09-14 23:04 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-09-15 8:59 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net @ 2005-09-14 23:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-09-14 23:04 -------
Subject: Re: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
"mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| 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?
We should make it a diagnostic and give a switch to people who are
"annoyed" to turn it off.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-14 23:04 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
@ 2005-09-15 8:59 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-15 12:40 ` dank at kegel dot com
` (12 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-15 8:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15 08:59 -------
A pedwarn might be the way to go, but I don't feel strongly about it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-15 8:59 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-15 12:40 ` dank at kegel dot com
2005-09-15 13:04 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dank at kegel dot com @ 2005-09-15 12:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-09-15 12:39 -------
I would dearly love to be able to say -Woverzealous-qualification
or something like that to turn on this warning.
It would make keeping our code portable much easier.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-15 12:40 ` dank at kegel dot com
@ 2005-09-15 13:04 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-15 13:09 ` dank at kegel dot com
` (10 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-15 13:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15 13:04 -------
Dan, why can't you use -pedantic? That's the best way of avoiding gnuisms.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-15 13:04 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-15 13:09 ` dank at kegel dot com
2005-09-15 13:11 ` dank at kegel dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dank at kegel dot com @ 2005-09-15 13:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-09-15 13:09 -------
Pain. We have a very large application, and we cannot
afford to fix all the warnings -pedantic gives.
This is another case of "we want to turn on and off individual warnings, please".
We're getting mighty tired of having to fix this particular
problem in our source over and over again every time
we try our app with a non-gcc compiler; pretty please
let us turn this warning on by itself...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-15 13:09 ` dank at kegel dot com
@ 2005-09-15 13:11 ` dank at kegel dot com
2005-09-15 14:24 ` jason at redhat dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dank at kegel dot com @ 2005-09-15 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-09-15 13:11 -------
Also, the non-gcc compiler we're trying our code with supports
some but not all gnuisms, so -pedantic would actually cause
us to fix much more of our code than is practically neccessary
for the kind of portability we want at the moment.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-15 13:11 ` dank at kegel dot com
@ 2005-09-15 14:24 ` jason at redhat dot com
2005-09-15 16:49 ` dank at kegel dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jason at redhat dot com @ 2005-09-15 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From jason at redhat dot com 2005-09-15 14:23 -------
Subject: Re: Accepts qualified member function declaration
in class
I wouldn't mind turning this diagnostic on by default as a pedwarn. As
usual, people who want their code to build anyway can use -fpermissive.
I'm strongly opposed to adding a flag for this diagnostic; I don't want
to use warning flags for things that make the code technically ill-formed.
I'm not particularly sympathetic to Dan's desire to be able to make GCC
exactly as pedantic as EDG. If you don't want to deal with all the
warnings from -pedantic, you can also filter them out with grep.
Jason
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-15 14:24 ` jason at redhat dot com
@ 2005-09-15 16:49 ` dank at kegel dot com
2005-09-15 17:50 ` jason at redhat dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dank at kegel dot com @ 2005-09-15 16:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-09-15 16:49 -------
We build everything with -Werror so errors are flagged as
fatal. If we added -pedantic, we'd have to stop using
-Werror, and implement the fatal error check ourselves in
a wrapper, which would be a huge pain.
gcc-4.1 had a stated goal of giving every warning a name,
and letting them be turned on and off individually. See
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Warning%20Message%20Control
I thought I was asking for something along the same lines.
I can't understand why anybody would oppose
the ability to turn on and off warnings selectively;
Jason, are you also opposed to that feature of gcc-4.1?
I am all in favor of forcing code to be C++ compliant,
but I have to tell you I just spent the last year
whipping a codebase into shape in that regard, and
I'd really like to be able to pick my battles,
and not have to fight the tools to do so.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-15 16:49 ` dank at kegel dot com
@ 2005-09-15 17:50 ` jason at redhat dot com
2005-09-15 19:34 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
` (5 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jason at redhat dot com @ 2005-09-15 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From jason at redhat dot com 2005-09-15 17:50 -------
Subject: Re: Accepts qualified member function declaration
in class
dank at kegel dot com wrote:
> gcc-4.1 had a stated goal of giving every warning a name,
> and letting them be turned on and off individually.
> Jason, are you also opposed to that feature of gcc-4.1?
No. The difference is that this diagnostic should really be an error,
we're just making it a pedwarn to allow noncompliant code to build when
it's clear what it means.
But I suppose if people want to be able to turn pedwarns on and off
individually under the same scheme, I can accept that.
Jason
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-15 17:50 ` jason at redhat dot com
@ 2005-09-15 19:34 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-09-15 21:39 ` dank at kegel dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net @ 2005-09-15 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-09-15 19:33 -------
Subject: Re: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
"jason at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| Subject: Re: Accepts qualified member function declaration
| in class
|
| dank at kegel dot com wrote:
| > gcc-4.1 had a stated goal of giving every warning a name,
| > and letting them be turned on and off individually.
| > Jason, are you also opposed to that feature of gcc-4.1?
|
| No. The difference is that this diagnostic should really be an error,
| we're just making it a pedwarn to allow noncompliant code to build when
| it's clear what it means.
While I said previously that I would prefer a switch over a documented
extensions; I would also like to point out that pedwarns really are
differents beasts -- and really are errors. They are not like the
kind of "uninitialized var" warnings.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-15 19:34 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
@ 2005-09-15 21:39 ` dank at kegel dot com
2005-09-27 23:37 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: dank at kegel dot com @ 2005-09-15 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com 2005-09-15 21:39 -------
Sounds like we're in violent agreement, then.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-15 21:39 ` dank at kegel dot com
@ 2005-09-27 23:37 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-28 14:51 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-27 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-27 23:37 -------
We have consensus to change this to a pedwarn by default; I'll take care of that.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org |
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-28 14:51 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-28 14:51 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-28 15:13 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-28 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-28 14:51 -------
Fixed in 4.1.0.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-27 23:37 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-28 14:51 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-28 14:51 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-28 15:13 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-28 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-28 14:50 -------
Subject: Bug 16782
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: mmitchel@gcc.gnu.org 2005-09-28 14:50:18
Modified files:
gcc/cp : decl.c ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.law: static-mem5.C
gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike: p8154.C
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse: qualified4.C
Log message:
PR c++/16782
* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Always pedwarn about overqualified
member names.
PR c++/16782
* g++.dg/parse/qualified4.C: New test.
* g++.old-deja/g++.law/static-mem5.C: Use -w -fpermissive.
* g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p8154.C: Likewise.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/decl.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.1428&r2=1.1429
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.4904&r2=1.4905
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.6110&r2=1.6111
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/qualified4.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.law/static-mem5.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p8154.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/16782] Accepts qualified member function declaration in class
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-28 14:51 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-28 15:13 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-28 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-28 15:13 -------
Fixed in 4.1.0.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16782
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-09-28 15:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-07-27 13:16 [Bug c++/16782] New: Accepts qualified member function declaration in class bangerth at dealii dot org
2004-07-27 13:43 ` [Bug c++/16782] " lindahl at pathscale dot com
2004-08-16 0:25 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2005-09-14 22:43 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-14 22:58 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
2005-09-14 23:04 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-09-15 8:59 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-15 12:40 ` dank at kegel dot com
2005-09-15 13:04 ` nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-15 13:09 ` dank at kegel dot com
2005-09-15 13:11 ` dank at kegel dot com
2005-09-15 14:24 ` jason at redhat dot com
2005-09-15 16:49 ` dank at kegel dot com
2005-09-15 17:50 ` jason at redhat dot com
2005-09-15 19:34 ` gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2005-09-15 21:39 ` dank at kegel dot com
2005-09-27 23:37 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-28 14:51 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-28 14:51 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-28 15:13 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
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).