From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20005 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2006 09:51:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 19948 invoked by uid 48); 18 Feb 2006 09:51:34 -0000 Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:51:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060218095134.19947.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/26122] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Pure specifiers for templates causing trouble In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" 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 X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg02039.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-18 09:51 ------- The reason that the first and last examples are accepted is that, were there dependent base classes, we would have no way of knowing whether or not those base classes might declare a virtual function for which this function was an override. We will detect the problem at template instantiation time. So, diagnosing those examples is almost a feature request, rather than a bug fix. I am testing a patch for the ICE. -- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: 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=26122