From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-343245-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 22700 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2011 16:57:31 -0000
Received: (qmail 22690 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2011 16:57:29 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:57:23 +0000
From: "balakrishnan.erode at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/11750] class scope using-declaration lookup not implemented
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: balakrishnan.erode at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-11750-4-MhsCThwFJb@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-11750-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-11750-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:06:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg01184.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11750

Balakrishnan B <balakrishnan.erode at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |balakrishnan.erode at gmail
                   |                            |dot com

--- Comment #6 from Balakrishnan B <balakrishnan.erode at gmail dot com> 2011-01-12 16:57:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Paragraph 10.3/2 in the C++ standard [ISO/IEC 14882:1998] provides the
> following
> code example:
> 
> <quote>
> 
> struct A {
>     virtual void f();
> };
> struct B : virtual A {
>     virtual void f();
> };
> 
> struct C : B , virtual A {
>     using A::f; 
> };
> void foo() {
>     C c; 
>     c.f();      // calls B::f, the final overrider
>     c.C::f();   // calls A::f because of the using-declaration
> }
> 
> </quote>
> 
> When a similar program is compiled using G++ 3.3, the method call 'c.f()' in
> function foo() incorrectly invokes A::f and not B::f as specified in the
> standard.
> 
> <example>
> <code main.cpp>
> #include <iostream>
> 
> struct A {
>     virtual void f() { std::cout << "A::f()\n"; }
> };
> struct B : virtual A {
>     virtual void f() { std::cout << "B::f()\n"; }
> };
> struct C : B, virtual A {
>     using A::f;
> };
> 
> int main()
> {
>     C c;
>     c.f();      // ERROR - Incorrectly invokes A::f
>     c.C::f();   // OK - Invokes A::f
> }
> </code>
> 
> <build>
> $ g++ main.cpp
> 
> $ ldd a.out
>         libstdc++.so.5 =>
> /usr/local/gcc/3.3/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.3/libstdc++.so.5
> (0x40017000)
>         libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0x400e4000)
>         libgcc_s.so.1 =>
> /usr/local/gcc/3.3/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.3/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x40106000)
>         libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x42000000)
>         /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
> </build>
> 
> <output>
> $ ./a.out
> A::f()
> A::f()
> </output>
> 
> </example>

Im using g++ 4.4.5
With the same example with my main function as below,
int main()
{
      C c;
      c.f() // Calls A::f
      C* pc = &c;
      pc->f() // Calls B::f
}

With the same object when accessed directly produces different results and when
accessed using a pointer of same type produces a different result. Even if gcc
violates standard, there has to be some proper explanation.