From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-28333-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9756 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2003 15:46:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 9696 invoked by uid 71); 23 Jan 2003 15:46:01 -0000
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:46:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030123154601.9695.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: c++/7016
Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg01372.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR c++/7016; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/7016
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:41:31 -0600 (CST)

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 01:02:30 -0700
 From: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>
 To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
      nobody@gcc.gnu.org
 Subject: Re: c++/7016: missing definitions for <?= and >?=
 
 The original issue was not (only) with overloading, but also with this
 operator not being available for the basic scalar types (while <? and >?
 are). Thanks, Jan
 
 >>> <bangerth@dealii.org> 23.01.03 04:11:18 >>>
 Synopsis: missing definitions for <?= and >?=
 
 State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed
 State-Changed-By: bangerth
 State-Changed-When: Thu Jan 23 03:11:18 2003
 State-Changed-Why:
     This is probably a corner case whether I should close the
     report: this has never worked (used to ICE)
     ---------------------------------
     class C {};
     C operator <?= (C) { return C(); }
     --------------------------------------
     I don't think it was ever documented that one should be
     able to overload this operator (a gcc extension anyway).
     Now we at least get a reasonable error:
     g/a> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-3.4-pre/bin/c++ -c x.cc
     x.cc:2: error: expected identifier
     x.cc:2: error: expected type-name
     x.cc:2: error: expected `,' or `;'
     
     So the fact that the new parser rejects the code is ok, and
     is not removing a documented extension.
     
     W.
 
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7016