From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15146 invoked by alias); 14 May 2011 22:50:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 15120 invoked by uid 22791); 14 May 2011 22:50:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 May 2011 22:50:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4EMnwLQ002705 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 14 May 2011 18:49:59 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn-113-120.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.120]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4EMnw6Q027774; Sat, 14 May 2011 18:49:58 -0400 Message-ID: <4DCF0715.4080909@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 14:08:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ville Voutilainen CC: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] C++0x, implement final on classes References: <87liyav7hf.wl%ville@ville-laptop> <4DCD6E7C.4070302@redhat.com> <4DCD74E0.9090303@redhat.com> <87r582w6w7.wl%ville@ville-laptop> <87liy9nxf1.wl%ville@ville-laptop> <4DCEB0A1.8040200@redhat.com> <4DCEC6B0.2000905@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg01065.txt.bz2 On 05/14/2011 02:19 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > Cool, thanks! I'm not quite sure whether there are ambiguities in the case > of elaborate-specifiers, but I suppose those can be fixed later. Good point. In the case that !cp_parser_next_token_starts_class_definition_p, we should rewind to before what we parsed as virt-specifiers. > Should these > facilities be somehow flagged 0x-only? I haven't done that at all.. Yes, we should maybe_warn_cpp0x about them. > Somebody should probably update the C++0x status page, and refer to N3206 > rather than to N2928 for explicit virtual overrides, and mark it done? Will do. Jason