From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-484667-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 50178 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2015 12:56:59 -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
Received: (qmail 50122 invoked by uid 48); 26 Apr 2015 12:56:55 -0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/65890] [C++03]sizeof(qualified-id) accepted when the operand denotes a non-static member
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:56:00 -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: 4.9.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
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-65890-4-XIpDDwhmto@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65890-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65890-4@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: 2015-04/txt/msg02219.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65890

--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This was changed by
http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#613

It was a defect in the original standard. What possible advantage is there in
rejecting it in C++03 mode but accepting it in C++11 mode? i.e. why do you
consider this a bug?