From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-291889-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 12715 invoked by alias); 14 May 2011 18:20:10 -0000
Received: (qmail 12707 invoked by uid 22791); 14 May 2011 18:20:09 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-bw0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-bw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.214.47)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 May 2011 18:19:55 +0000
Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so3504818bwz.20        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Sat, 14 May 2011 11:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.75.23 with SMTP id w23mr1646804bkj.200.1305397194229; Sat, 14 May 2011 11:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.60.73 with HTTP; Sat, 14 May 2011 11:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DCEC6B0.2000905@redhat.com>
References: <87liyav7hf.wl%ville@ville-laptop>	<4DCD6E7C.4070302@redhat.com>	<BANLkTi=fAbVJzo5MRzgjYiTjYKwC54eJ4A@mail.gmail.com>	<4DCD74E0.9090303@redhat.com>	<87r582w6w7.wl%ville@ville-laptop>	<DB615F73-1A5E-4DA5-9E46-F9D97D776398@oracle.com>	<87liy9nxf1.wl%ville@ville-laptop>	<4DCEB0A1.8040200@redhat.com>	<BANLkTi=ftz_i31Y3yjohqsYOTvMP4zBAdg@mail.gmail.com>	<4DCEC6B0.2000905@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 10:25:00 -0000
Message-ID: <BANLkTim4hWFrBHtUVN+z=ChDLOp-VYfvXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] C++0x, implement final on classes
From: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
To: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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: 2011-05/txt/msg01060.txt.bz2

On 14 May 2011 21:15, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/14/2011 12:42 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>> Duly noted, I'll keep that in mind for subsequent ones. Is the patch
>> otherwise ok?
> Yes, and I've applied it.

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. Should these
facilities be somehow flagged 0x-only? I haven't done that at all..

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?