From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7470 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2002 15:46:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7406 invoked by uid 71); 23 Aug 2002 15:46:04 -0000 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020823154604.7403.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Gabriel Dos Reis Subject: Re: c++/7686: template compilation failure on unused method Reply-To: Gabriel Dos Reis X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00499.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/7686; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Gabriel Dos Reis To: leick.robinson@motorola.com Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/7686: template compilation failure on unused method Date: 23 Aug 2002 17:34:45 +0200 Leick Robinson writes: | Do you mean that it was a bug in 2.95.2, that it should have instantiated | the declarations (and thus, failed to compile)? Yes. | And, further, that 3.0.4 is correct in its failure to compile? Yes. The relevant chapter and verse is 14.7.1/1 [...] The implicit instantiation of a class template specialization causes the implicit instantiation of the declarations, but not of the definitions or default arguments, of the class member func-tions, member classes, static data members and member templates; and it causes the implicit instantiation of the definitions of member anonymous unions. [...] | I'm not sure what a "regression from gcc-3.0.4" means (as stated in the | Audit Trail). I meant "GCC-3.0.4 got it right but now we get it wrong". -- Gaby