From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3259 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2003 22:16:01 -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 3243 invoked by uid 71); 2 Mar 2003 22:16:01 -0000 Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 22:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030302221601.3242.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c++/9881: Incorrect address calculation for static class member Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00053.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/9881; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: "Peter A. Buhr" Cc: asharji@uwaterloo.ca, , Subject: Re: c++/9881: Incorrect address calculation for static class member Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 16:06:41 -0600 (CST) > It seems to me that a cast to a pointer should always have the same meaning. > That is, when reinterpreting the bits, the meaning of those bits cannot imply a > static context in one case and a dynamic in another. That seems too bizarre. This I leave to ones more trained in C++ standard legalese. > So what is the next step? My code use to work with gcc 3.2 and now fails with > gcc 3.3. My understanding is that gcc3.3 is scheduled for release very soon and > I would like my code to work with it. What law firm do I need to hire to press > my case as it seems the issue is an open question for the current version of > g++. What if I get a note from Bjarne saying which way it's suppose to go? Then this would be one more in the list of 400 or so C++ reports where we know that gcc is doing the wrong thing. If your claim is right then this would be a regression -- that would raise the priority of the report, but doesn't imply any guarantees. You didn't pay for gcc you have no claim against it. If you really need to make your code run with gcc3.3, you have 3 options: - you fix gcc - you pay someone to fix gcc - you work around it in your code. > However, the bottom-line is that I should not need to justify a legitimate use > for some feature in the language. (What a programmer wishes to do in the > privacy their own code is their business.) The feature is there for me to use, > and should work correctly (modulo the current outstanding legal question). True enough, modulo the thing about free software: it comes "as is", without any guarantees. Sorry for not being of more help Wolfgang ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/