* [Bug c++/21498] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced
[not found] <bug-21498-8718@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2006-07-01 1:06 ` fang at csl dot cornell dot edu
2006-07-01 11:18 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: fang at csl dot cornell dot edu @ 2006-07-01 1:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2006-07-01 01:06 -------
Tripped over this bug while testing some code against ICPC... almost filed a
dupe!
Using the test case from PR 23385, still reproducible (accepts-invalid) on
mainline g++ 4.2.0-20060610.
I'd like to understand the rationale behind this C++ standard clause...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/21498] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced
[not found] <bug-21498-8718@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2006-07-01 1:06 ` [Bug c++/21498] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced fang at csl dot cornell dot edu
@ 2006-07-01 11:18 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-07-01 22:09 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-07-01 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-01 11:18 -------
Mark, this bug concerns a C++ standard question, perhaps you could give your
interpretation...
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mark at codesourcery dot com
Last reconfirmed|2005-11-04 04:36:06 |2006-07-01 11:18:03
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/21498] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced
[not found] <bug-21498-8718@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2006-07-01 1:06 ` [Bug c++/21498] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced fang at csl dot cornell dot edu
2006-07-01 11:18 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-07-01 22:09 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-07-02 8:44 ` truedfx at gentoo dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-07-01 22:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-01 22:09 -------
This code is not invalid, and G++ is correct to accept it.
DR68 permits this grammatical production and typedef-names for classes are
class-names.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/21498] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced
[not found] <bug-21498-8718@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-07-01 22:09 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-07-02 8:44 ` truedfx at gentoo dot org
2006-07-02 17:37 ` fang at csl dot cornell dot edu
` (9 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: truedfx at gentoo dot org @ 2006-07-02 8:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from truedfx at gentoo dot org 2006-07-02 08:44 -------
> This code is not invalid, and G++ is correct to accept it.
>
> DR68 permits this grammatical production and typedef-names for classes are
> class-names.
Does that mean this code is valid, too?
typedef class A {} a;
class B {
friend class a;
};
GCC 4.1.1 rejects it with error: using typedef-name ‘a’ after
‘class’.
And if it is valid, should a new bug be opened for it?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/21498] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced
[not found] <bug-21498-8718@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-07-02 8:44 ` truedfx at gentoo dot org
@ 2006-07-02 17:37 ` fang at csl dot cornell dot edu
2006-07-03 5:19 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: fang at csl dot cornell dot edu @ 2006-07-02 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2006-07-02 17:37 -------
Subject: Re: clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced
Would it be appropriate to prefix [DR 68] to the subject?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/21498] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced
[not found] <bug-21498-8718@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-07-02 17:37 ` fang at csl dot cornell dot edu
@ 2006-07-03 5:19 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-05 10:21 ` pluto at agmk dot net
` (7 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-07-03 5:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-03 05:19 -------
I'm sorry; I had missed the fact that the elaborated type specifier refers uses
a typedef-name. This code is in fact invalid, since an elaborated type
specifier may not refer to a typedef-name.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/21498] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced
[not found] <bug-21498-8718@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-07-03 5:19 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-05 10:21 ` pluto at agmk dot net
2006-09-18 23:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pluto at agmk dot net @ 2006-09-05 10:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-09-05 10:20 -------
*** Bug 28895 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pluto at agmk dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/21498] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced
[not found] <bug-21498-8718@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-05 10:21 ` pluto at agmk dot net
@ 2006-09-18 23:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-18 23:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-18 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 23:42 -------
http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1520.pdf
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1791.pdf
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/21498] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced
[not found] <bug-21498-8718@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-18 23:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-18 23:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-18 23:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-18 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/21498] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced
[not found] <bug-21498-8718@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-18 23:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-18 23:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-18 23:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-18 23:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 23:42 -------
*** Bug 22047 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kumar dot mahesh at
| |cognizant dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/21498] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced
[not found] <bug-21498-8718@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-18 23:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-18 23:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-18 23:44 ` [Bug c++/21498] [c++0x] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-18 23:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 23:42 -------
*** Bug 29123 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |gcc at pdoerfler dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/21498] [c++0x] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced
[not found] <bug-21498-8718@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-18 23:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-18 23:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-09-19 5:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-11-03 18:40 ` [Bug c++/21498] [c++0x] friend declaration can name non-class with class-key jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-18 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 23:42 -------
*** Bug 29123 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |gcc at pdoerfler dot com
Summary|clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ |[c++0x] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of
|is not enforced |the c++ is not enforced
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/21498] [c++0x] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of the c++ is not enforced
[not found] <bug-21498-8718@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-18 23:44 ` [Bug c++/21498] [c++0x] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-09-19 5:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-11-03 18:40 ` [Bug c++/21498] [c++0x] friend declaration can name non-class with class-key jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-09-19 5:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-19 05:18 -------
I don't know the state of this feature in C++0x at all and I don't know if this
means this is now valid code but only with an option like -std=c++0x.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/21498] [c++0x] friend declaration can name non-class with class-key
[not found] <bug-21498-8718@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2006-09-19 5:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-11-03 18:40 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: jason at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-11-03 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-03 18:40 -------
In C++0x the testcase is still ill-formed, but changing "friend class" to
"friend typename" makes it well-formed. I'm not going to give an error for
this usage until the other usage is implemented.
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2005/n1791.pdf
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[c++0x] clause 7.1.5.3/2 of |[c++0x] friend declaration
|the c++ is not enforced |can name non-class with
| |class-key
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21498
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread