public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/30857]  New: accepts both explicit instantiation and explicit specialization, duplicate explicit instantiations, etc.
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:19:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-30857-365@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)

I thought g++ used to warn for this:

template <typename T>
class foo { };

template<> class foo<int> { };

template class foo<int>;

Where the error was something informative like "one may not explicitly
specialize and explicitly instantiate" blah blah blah

However, mainline currently does not do this.

>From 14.7

-5- No program shall explicitly instantiate any template more than once, both
explicitly instantiate and explicitly specialize a template, or specialize a
template more than once for a given set of template-arguments. An
implementation is not required to diagnose a violation of this rule.

So, this is not required by the standard. As a QoI issue, however, this would
be  beneficial. 

Here's why I wanted this: if one is doing API testing, and the API requires
explicit specializations, than one possible negative test is to explicitly
instantiate the required specialization and get an error. 

Otherwise, I suppose another neg test is to redefine the specialization. This
is also not required to give an error, but current g++ does (redefinition
error). 

Note also, no diagnostic for duplicate explicit instantiations:

template <typename T>
class foo { };

template class foo<int>;
template class foo<int>;


Either of these or all may be a warning regressions (if my mind is not playing
tricks on me.)

I have not tested with other compilers, or previous g++ versions.

Consistent behavior for all three cases would be appreciated.


-- 
           Summary: accepts both explicit instantiation and explicit
                    specialization, duplicate explicit instantiations, etc.
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
 GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
  GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30857


             reply	other threads:[~2007-02-19 11:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-02-19 11:19 bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2007-03-09  4:20 ` [Bug c++/30857] [4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] " bangerth at dealii dot org
2007-03-09 18:56 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-03-11 19:56 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-09-23 19:50 ` simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-24 17:19 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2008-01-24 17:26 ` bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-01-24 18:43 ` pcarlini at suse dot de

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-30857-365@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).