From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31928 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2012 17:30:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 31845 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2012 17:30:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED 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; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:30:21 +0000 From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/53573] template type dependent name resolution broken Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:30:00 -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: redi at gcc dot gnu.org 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: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-06/txt/msg00259.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53573 --- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-06-05 17:30:18 UTC --- (In reply to comment #21) > Is there any chance this 'feature' of GCC could be kept as a g++ specific > extension in 'gnu++11' mode, as I think the old behaviour is an improvement > over that suggested in the standard, and GCC provides other extensions to > standard behaviour where it is useful. I doubt it. The old behaviour was the source of several long-standing bug reports. Now G++ implements the standard's required behaviour and agrees with other leading compilers. GNU extensions usually allow new features by supporting new syntax not by changing the meaning of valid code, it would not be a pure extension.