From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 6AB99385802D; Fri,  5 Nov 2021 14:44:01 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6AB99385802D
From: "terra at gnome dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/103084] Accepts invalid using enum declaration with an
 invalid elaborated-type-specifier
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 14:44:01 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: terra at gnome dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103084-4-lrVZZN5yUb@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103084-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103084-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 14:44:01 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103084

--- Comment #9 from M Welinder <terra at gnome dot org> ---
I went back and looked at the proposal's revision history.

TLDR: this just adds to the confusion.


r3 (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1099r3.html):
* I read it as allowing "using enum Hog;"
* No mention of elaborated-type-specifier

r4 (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1099r4.html):
* I read it as *dis*allowing "using enum Hog;"
* "using enum foo" defined in terms of elaborated-type-specifier (not -enum=
-)

r5 (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1099r5.html):
* This is the version that was approved
* elaborated-enum-specifier first appears here
* "using enum foo" defined in terms of elaborated-enum-specifier=