From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18823 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2012 17:01:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 18810 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2012 17:01:15 -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 17:01:02 +0000 From: "keean@fry-it.com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/53573] template type dependent name resolution broken Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:01:00 -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: keean@fry-it.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: 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/msg00258.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53573 --- Comment #21 from Keean Schupke 2012-06-05 17:01:01 UTC --- (In reply to comment #20) Yes, once again sorry. Obviously not GCC's problem for implementing the standard correctly, but this causes problems producing elegant datatype generic code. For example if a concept is defined in a library (using Boost Concept Checking for example) and I want to make 'int' comply to that concept, I would have to declare the new int methods before including the library. This seems very odd in end user code. In this case there is nothing intuitively wrong with the way GCC was doing it - it was not difficult for the compiler authors to implement, and nor did it lead to incorrect or hard to understand code, in fact it worked very well for generic programming. 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'm under the impression that the bug reports using the word 'broken' are the > ones most likely broken, err invalid. Maybe just another manifestation of the > illusion of confidence, well known to the psychologjsts? (for a very nice intro > see, eg, Chabris & Simons, 'The invisible gorilla', Ch 3)