[Bug c++/34827] New: Weird name-lookup error

[Bug c++/34827] New: Weird name-lookup error

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

template <typename T>
struct Foo
{
    template <typename Z>
    friend void func(const Foo &);
};

void check(const Foo<int> & x)
{
    Foo<int> weird;

    func<int>(x);
}


func is incorrectly found by name-lookup.  If you delete the
declaration of weird the program is rejected as it should.

Maybe we are confused by applying argument dependent name-lookup
here?


-- 
           Summary: Weird name-lookup error
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: accepts-invalid
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34827

[Bug c++/34827] Weird name-lookup error

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-30 05:45 -------
>func is incorrectly found by name-lookup.
No it should be found even without the "Foo<int> weird;"

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 34870 ***


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34827

[Bug c++/34827] Weird name-lookup error

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-30 10:20 -------
IMHO the friend declaration isn't a declaration for func, no?  At least it
shouldn't inject the name into Foo<T>?


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
         Resolution|DUPLICATE                   |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34827

[Bug c++/34827] Weird name-lookup error

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-30 10:42 -------
EDG reports (in strict-ansi mode - otherwise the friend decl injects the name)

icpc -S t.C -strict_ansi
t.C(12): error: identifier "func" is undefined
    func<int>(x);
    ^

t.C(12): error: type name is not allowed
    func<int>(x);
         ^

compilation aborted for t.C (code 2)


with and without the "weird" decl.  Which is IMHO correct.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34827

[Bug c++/34827] Weird name-lookup error

[dragan at plusplus dot co dot yu]

------- Comment #4 from dragan at plusplus dot co dot yu  2008-12-30 11:42 -------
Please see my bug report #34870. There are references to discussions
and other sources that show why this code is valid.

Hm... Apparently, this is exactly my test case. :-D


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34827

[Bug c++/34827] Weird name-lookup error

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-30 11:44 -------


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 34870 ***


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34827

[Bug c++/34827] Weird name-lookup error

[rguenther at suse dot de]

------- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de  2008-12-30 11:46 -------
Subject: Re:  Weird name-lookup error

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, dragan at plusplus dot co dot yu wrote:

> ------- Comment #4 from dragan at plusplus dot co dot yu  2008-12-30 11:42 -------
> Please see my bug report #34870. There are references to discussions
> and other sources that show why this code is valid.
> 
> Hm... Apparently, this is exactly my test case. :-D

Indeed.  Still it's invalid.

Richard.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34827