From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7413 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2013 16:41:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 6011 invoked by uid 48); 16 Jan 2013 16:40:45 -0000 From: "david.irvine at maidsafe dot net" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/56004] Possible bug with decltype and access modifer order Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:41:00 -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: david.irvine at maidsafe dot net X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: 2013-01/txt/msg01539.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56004 --- Comment #2 from David Irvine 2013-01-16 16:40:43 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > As was explained on stackoverflow, this has nothing t odo with access > modifiers, as you can easily demonstrate by making everything public. > > _t has not been declared at the point where you try to use it, so the name is > not in scope. What are you claiming is a bug? It might be my confusion but is that not altering modifiers ? I am not sure why the initialisation list does not make the private member available (at least declared). On the clang mailing list this was hinted at as well, but I am not sure that this is a case where private: before public: does work and not vice versa although as I said it is very likely a c++ issue that I have just not come across yet (although I will remember as usual). Can you confirm why the _t is not available or declared when it is in the initialisation list ? does the decltype require earlier visibility than the ctr ? Sorry if this is indeed not a bug but a misunderstanding.