From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-295098-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29815 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2011 16:10:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 29804 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2011 16:10:54 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp207.alice.it (HELO smtp207.alice.it) (82.57.200.103)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:10:40 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (79.52.194.95) by smtp207.alice.it (8.5.124.08)        id 4DFA189A00B21250; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:10:36 +0200
Message-ID: <4E0365AC.6000701@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:13:00 -0000
From: Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 SUSE/3.1.10 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
CC: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44625
References: <4E031E9C.8090502@oracle.com> <4E0352EF.6000007@redhat.com> <4E035C0C.2070407@oracle.com> <4E035FF6.4050209@redhat.com> <4E03613B.2020302@oracle.com> <4E036350.7010700@redhat.com> <4E036459.2090903@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E036459.2090903@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01783.txt.bz2

On 06/23/2011 06:05 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Actually, 9.5 says
>
> A union of the form
>   union { member-specification } ;
> is called an anonymous union; it defines an unnamed object of unnamed 
> type. The member-specification of an anonymous union shall only define 
> non-static data members. [ Note: Nested types and functions cannot
> be declared within an anonymous union. — end note ]
>
> So we should be able to just reject nested anonymous aggregates and 
> not worry about how to make them work.
Yes, but we are accepting already some of that as an extension. If I 
compile the testcase with -pedantic-errors I get:

44625.C:8:31: error: ISO C++ prohibits anonymous structs [-pedantic]
44625.C:9:9: error: anonymous struct not inside named type

thus, it's not clear to me where we should stop, exactly.

Paolo.