Re: c++/9558: subclass cannot find parent members without explicit "this->" in some cases

[Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>]

The following reply was made to PR c++/9558; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: "Ryan C. Gordon" <ryan@epicgames.com>
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: c++/9558: subclass cannot find parent members without explicit
 "this->" in some cases
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:48:50 -0600 (CST)

 > Surely there's got to be some consideration for backwards compatibility, 
 > if not real world issues?
 
 Just to prove my point about surprising behavior:
 -----------------------------------------------
 #include <iostream>
 // ---------
 const int N = 2;
 
 // ---------
 template <typename T> struct A {    // templated base class
     static const int N = 1;
 };
 template <typename T> struct B : A<T> {
     B () { std::cout << "N=" << N << std::endl; }
 };
 
 // ---------
 
 struct C {    // non-templated base class
     static const int N = 1;
 };
 template <typename T> struct D : C {
     D () { std::cout << "N=" << N << std::endl; }
 };
 
 // ---------
 
 int main () {
   B<int> b;
   D<int> d;
 }
 ---------------------------------------------
 
 In each case, the question is: which N to take, the one from the base 
 class, or the global one. Here are a couple of data points:
 
 gcc2.96:
 N=2
 N=1
 
 present gcc CVS:
 N=2
 N=1
 
 Intel icc7:
 N=1
 N=1
 
 Intel icc7 with -Xc -ansi:
 N=2
 N=1
 
 Compaq cxx:
 N=1
 N=1
 
 So, what is right and what is wrong? And what is the "real world" you 
 quote?
 
 W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth             email:            bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/