From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1097 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2006 18:48:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 1042 invoked by uid 48); 6 Oct 2006 18:48:41 -0000 Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20061006184841.1041.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/29365] Unnecessary anonymous namespace warnings In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "gcc at magfr dot user dot lysator dot liu dot se" 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: 2006-10/txt/msg00521.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #4 from gcc at magfr dot user dot lysator dot liu dot se 2006-10-06 18:48 ------- I still fail to understand why this would inherently violate the ODR. I agree with Andrew that if more than one translation unit sees the defintion of foo::bar then it will violate the ODR but if only one translation unit ever sees the definition of foo::bar then I see no problem with this. Externally foo::bar is exposed only as a undefined inner class. About the only thing you could use it for would be as a pointer target. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29365