From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12022 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2003 04:06:01 -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 12003 invoked by uid 71); 8 Feb 2003 04:06:01 -0000 Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 04:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030208040601.12002.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Gabriel Dos Reis Subject: Re: c++/9621: const int typedef is rejected Reply-To: Gabriel Dos Reis X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00394.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/9621; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Gabriel Dos Reis To: bangerth@dealii.org Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, patrick.rabau@gs.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/9621: const int typedef is rejected Date: 08 Feb 2003 05:03:09 +0100 bangerth@dealii.org writes: | 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 is. See a recent discussion on comp.std.c++ where I gave detailed references. Basically it boils down to the clause 7; section 7.1. decl-specifiers can appear in *any* order -- that is one of the reasons why grokdeclarator() is so weird. -- Gaby