From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22260 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2003 00:22:54 -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 22241 invoked by uid 48); 8 Feb 2003 00:22:54 -0000 Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 00:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030208002254.22240.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, patrick.rabau@gs.com From: bangerth@dealii.org Reply-To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, patrick.rabau@gs.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/9621: const int typedef is rejected X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00381.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: const int typedef is rejected State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback State-Changed-By: bangerth State-Changed-When: Sat Feb 8 00:22:54 2003 State-Changed-Why: Fixed in 3.4: it accepts both typedefs. I'm surprised that this is legal at all. The standard says that typedef expressions need to "contain" the typedef keyword, but the examples only show it as in the form typedef type1 type2; Can some language lawyer comment on whether and why type1 typedef type2; is legal syntax? It's also accepted by the C frontend, by the way. W. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=9621