From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-386379-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 28500 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2012 21:47:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 28491 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2012 21:47:37 -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; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 21:47:23 +0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/33101] [DR 577] allow typedefs for void in empty parameter list
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 22:54:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-33101-4-0jaTJSGC3Y@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-33101-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-33101-4@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
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: 2012-03/txt/msg01432.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33101

--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-16 21:46:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (I thought perhaps that the change had been made between
> N3290 and the released standard, but apparently that's not the case.)

See the text in bold at the top of the issues list:
"Issues with DR and WP status are NOT part of the International Standard for
C++."

> The fact that C90 required the keyword further weakens my previous
> argument.
> 
> So the diagnostic is necessary, but I'd still suggest that a warning
> would be more appropriate, and would still meet the current standard's
> requirements.

The current standard is C++11, that change is only in the current *draft* and
that's not a standard.

> (I should mention that I have no need for this myself; I don't even take
> advantage of the permission to use "(void)" rather than "()".)

Good, it's an abomination!