From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22262 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2008 12:03:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 21902 invoked by uid 48); 27 Feb 2008 12:02:51 -0000 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080227120251.21901.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/35387] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ produces inconsistent output In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "d dot frey at gmx dot de" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg02824.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #2 from d dot frey at gmx dot de 2008-02-27 12:02 ------- I understand where the names come from, but that doesn't make the message correct. Consider the specialization in the example program to use <_T2,_T1> (note the reversed order) and an instantiation with , the resulting message is: static void A >::f() [with _T2 = int, _T1 = double] which is *really* misleading. Since it's actually vice versa. Additionally I just found out that the same problem also occurs within error and warning messages from the compiler, so it's not limited to __PRETTY_FUNCTION__. I triggered a warning for an unused variable, which reads: foo.cpp: In static member function ‘static void A >::f() [with T = int, U = int]’: foo.cpp:17: instantiated from here foo.cpp:10: warning: unused variable ‘i’ Regards, Daniel -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35387