Re: c++/8772: Segmentation fault on 3 lines of template code

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>]

The following reply was made to PR c++/8772; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, <zack@codesourcery.com>, <pcarlini@unitus.it>,
   <sneechy@hotmail.com>, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: c++/8772: Segmentation fault on 3 lines of template code
Date: 03 Dec 2002 17:06:38 +0100

 Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu> writes:
 
 | > |     However, just for the record: I fail to see how this can be
 | > |     made legal: when you write A<n>::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<n>::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.
 | > 
 | > This case seems to be forgotten by the standard.  I think the
 | > following should make GCC happy.
 | > 
 | >   template<int n>
 | >      struct D  {
 | >        enum { 
 | >          v = C<A<n>::template B>::v
 | >        };
 | >      };
 | > 
 | > Note the "template" keyword in front of B.
 | 
 | Right, it does.
 | 
 | 
 | > The closest you can find in the standard is 14.2/
 | > 
 | >     4
 | >       When the name of a member template specialization appears after . or
 |                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 | I think this is why you said it seems to have been forgotten? After all it 
 | speaks about a specialization, which it is not in the code you posted.
 
 Right.
 
 | If you are sure that this is an oversight,
 
 I didn't intend to speak for the committee -- I can't and I don't want
 to.
 
 But I find the above wording overly restrictive.
 
 | why don't you bring it up with 
 | the ISO committee?
 
 Already done ;-)
 
 -- Gaby