Re: c++/3239: template specializations and namespace issues

Re: c++/3239: template specializations and namespace issues

[Alexandre Oliva]

The following reply was made to PR c++/3239; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
To: bkoz@gnu.org
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, jason@redhat.com, mark@codesourcery.com
Subject: Re: c++/3239: template specializations and namespace issues
Date: 19 Jun 2001 06:58:43 -0300

 [temp.expl.spec]/2 says ``An explicit specialization shall be declared
 in the namespace of which the template is a member [...]''
 
 -- 
 Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
 Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
 CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
 Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me

Re: c++/3239: template specializations and namespace issues

[Jason Merrill]

The following reply was made to PR c++/3239; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To: nathan@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: bkoz@gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, mark@codesourcery.com,
	nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c++/3239: template specializations and namespace issues
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 12:55:55 +0100

 To clarify, if the specialization had been previously declared in std, the
 definition would be well-formed (and accepted by g++).
 
 Jason

Re: c++/3239: template specializations and namespace issues

[nathan]

Synopsis: template specializations and namespace issues

State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: nathan
State-Changed-When: Fri Apr 26 04:01:04 2002
State-Changed-Why:
    not a bug, like gaby says, is should be inside
    namespace std { ... };

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=3239

c++/3239: template specializations and namespace issues

[bkoz]

>Number:         3239
>Category:       c++
>Synopsis:       template specializations and namespace issues
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Mon Jun 18 13:16:00 PDT 2001
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Benjamin Kosnik
>Release:        gcc-3.0, gcc CVS
>Organization:
>Environment:
x86/linux, all
>Description:
Try compiling the following legal code:


namespace std
{
  template <class _T1, class _T2>
  struct pair {
    typedef _T1 first_type;
    typedef _T2 second_type;

    _T1 first;
    _T2 second;
    //265.  std::pair::pair() effects overly restrictive
    pair() : first(), second() {}
    pair(const _T1& __a, const _T2& __b) : first(__a), second(__b) {}

    template <class _U1, class _U2>
    pair(const pair<_U1, _U2>& __p) : first(__p.first), second(__p.second) {}
  };
}

bool global = false;

template<> class std::pair<int, int>
{
public:
  pair(const int&, const int&) { global = true; }
};

And you'll get:
%COMP.sh g++1.cc
g++1.cc:29: specializing `class std::pair<int, int>' in different namespace
g++1.cc:6:   from definition of `template<class _T1, class _T2> struct 
   std::pair'


A particular C++ conformance suite uses this idiom throughout the testsuite.

-benjamin
>How-To-Repeat:

>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: