From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17907 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2003 13:46:01 -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 17880 invoked by uid 71); 15 Apr 2003 13:46:00 -0000 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030415134600.17876.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Igor A. Goussarov" Subject: Re: c++/10332: Template classes are not instantiated correctly in presense of #pragma pack() Reply-To: "Igor A. Goussarov" X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00677.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/10332; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Igor A. Goussarov" To: rittle@labs.mot.com Cc: velco@fadata.bg, ljrittle@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/10332: Template classes are not instantiated correctly in presense of #pragma pack() Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 17:39:08 +0400 Loren James Rittle wrote: > The proper fix is to either (a) document what is happening, > only available if no external spec says we are doing something wrong, > or (b) retain the global flag but capture it's value and bind it for > use when the C++ template is actually instantiated. The whole realm of #pragma is out of scope of the C++ standard. And I don't know which other documents could be considered relyable external specs... I can suggest examining the behaviour of other compilers (to keep the behaviour consistent) or taking this question of the correct behaviour to the trusted expert or community. Best Regards, Igor