From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25551 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2002 20:45:35 -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 25511 invoked by uid 61); 2 Dec 2002 20:45:31 -0000 Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021202204531.25509.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, sneechy@hotmail.com From: bangerth@dealii.org Reply-To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, sneechy@hotmail.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/8772: Segmentation fault on 3 lines of template code X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: Segmentation fault on 3 lines of template code State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed State-Changed-By: bangerth State-Changed-When: Mon Dec 2 12:45:29 2002 State-Changed-Why: Others have confirmed this already. However, just for the record: I fail to see how this can be made legal: when you write A::B to denote the template type, B is a template dependent type, and one would think one has to write a "typename" somewhere. But then we have typename A::B which is not the name of a type, but of a template. I don't know what the standard says here, but I don't see a way to make it legal in any case. More reference: icc7 also rejects the code, both with and without the "typename". http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8772