[Bug c++/65598] Misleading error message for out-of-class definition of explicit conversion operator

["redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65598

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |diagnostic
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |5.0

--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 5 says:

e.cc:6:42: error: ‘explicit’ outside class declaration
   explicit ExplicitTest::operator bool() const
                                          ^

(The caret position is a well known issue with all error locations, there is
work being done to improve things.)
>From gcc-bugs-return-481983-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Mar 27 11:00:40 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-481983-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 126061 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2015 11:00:40 -0000
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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 125704 invoked by uid 48); 27 Mar 2015 11:00:32 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug testsuite/65594] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-6.c timeout
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:22:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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: <bug-65594-4-2EpMO6W5nb@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65594-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65594-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: 2015-03/txt/msg03127.txt.bz2
Content-length: 262

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ide594

--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
And use M instead of N in the outer two loops and define M to something lower
(100, 50 or similar)?  The test doesn't verify the result anyway.