From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-368429-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30710 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2011 22:47:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 30698 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Sep 2011 22:47:13 -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; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 22:47:00 +0000
From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/47436] [C++0x] Variadic base-specifier-list of union rejected
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:10:00 -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:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Resolution
Message-ID: <bug-47436-4-gowLhNBBcS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-47436-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-47436-4@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: 2011-09/txt/msg01606.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47436

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID

--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-09-22 22:46:26 UTC ---
Good, let's close this as invalid, then.

Thanks for clarifying the error_at thing, I should give it more thought: I was
under the impression that we tend to avoid (not a strict rule) things like
"error: unions cannot have base classes" because on a given line a lot can
happen (other errors together with good code) and an accurate column number is
anyway less convenient (for sure to a human like me!) than a name.