From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-119098-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 2544 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2004 14:50:24 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
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
Received: (qmail 2533 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2004 14:50:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (195.135.220.2)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Jun 2004 14:50:23 -0000
Received: from hermes.suse.de (hermes-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.8])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A99656C6E49;
	Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:50:22 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:47:00 -0000
From: Gerald Pfeifer <gp@suse.de>
To: Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo@libero.it>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [HTML] Add new C++ access check rules to changes.html (PR 14949)
In-Reply-To: <239d01c44ee3$1d08b870$444e2a97@bagio>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406101649280.4636@lifschitz.suse.de>
References: <239d01c44ee3$1d08b870$444e2a97@bagio>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00641.txt.bz2

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Tested with the validator, OK to commit?

Jason already approved, but I'm wondering about one detail:

> Index: changes.html
> ===================================================================
> !  public:
> !    void pub_func(void);
> !  protected:
> !    void prot_func(void);
> !  private:
> !    void priv_func(void);
> !  };
> !
> !  class B : public A
> !  {
> !  public:
> !    void foo(void)

Do we really need all these "(void)"s instead of just "()"?  Personally, I
prefer the latter.

Gerald