From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24727 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2013 16:04:10 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 24514 invoked by uid 48); 26 Jun 2013 16:04:05 -0000 From: "scottbaldwin at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/57239] cannot handle inner/nested class templates with non-type parameter packs that were declared in the outer/containing class Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:04:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: scottbaldwin at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg01605.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57239 --- Comment #12 from etherice --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11) > (In reply to etherice from comment #10) > > Isn't it defeating the purpose of having a 'status' field if it's not being > > used? > > What makes you think it isn't used? His comment that "quite often bugs are fixed when still unconfirmed". In those cases, when it isn't used, the submission isn't even acknowledged until the bug is fixed. > Paolo is saying that the difference > between UNCONFIRMED and NEW is often irrelevant for the submitter's > purposes, that doesn't mean the entire field isn't used. The ASSIGNED and > RESOLVED values are obviously not the same as UNCONFIRMED/NEW. The point was more about setting an initial status -- something -- to acknowledge the submission was reviewed. > But there is no "dev team" so there's no radar for it to meaningfully be on. I meant the group of developers maintaining gcc. > That's not how GCC works. Confirming the bug means at least one person > agrees it's a real bug, and noone else has disagreed strongly enough to say > it's INVALID, it doesn't mean it's on anyone's TODO list or a fix is in > progress. But you agree that it says *something*, which is better than nothing. It's some kind of acknowledgement to the submitter that the report was reviewed by someone and not just lost in the shuffle. Paulo's observation that "often bug submitters attach way too much importance to the status change". I can't speak for everyone, but it sounds like bug submitters eventually become curious about the status of their submissions, after enough time passes.