Re: c++/10381: [3.4 regression] Accepts call to inexistent function

Re: c++/10381: [3.4 regression] Accepts call to inexistent function

[mmitchel]

Synopsis: [3.4 regression] Accepts call to inexistent function

State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed
State-Changed-By: mmitchel
State-Changed-When: Tue Apr 15 20:25:40 2003
State-Changed-Why:
    Fixed in GCC 3.4.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10381

Re: c++/10381: [3.4 regression] Accepts call to inexistent function

[bangerth]

Synopsis: [3.4 regression] Accepts call to inexistent function

State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Fri Apr 11 23:05:48 2003
State-Changed-Why:
    Confirmed by existence of 10372. See also PR 10371.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10381

c++/10381: [3.4 regression] Accepts call to inexistent function

[bangerth]

>Number:         10381
>Category:       c++
>Synopsis:       [3.4 regression] Accepts call to inexistent function
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          accepts-illegal
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Fri Apr 11 19:46:00 UTC 2003
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Wolfgang Bangerth
>Release:        unknown-1.0
>Organization:
>Environment:
mainline (3.4)
>Description:
This is actually almost unbelievable: present 3.4 accepts
this code:
-----------------------------
struct X {};

template <int>
struct Base {
    static void foo () {
      X::NONEXISTENT ();
    }
};

int main () {
  Base<2>::foo ();
}
-----------------------------
Note the call to the nonexistent member function of X. What
is worse: it doesn't even generate a linker error, it just
ignores the call in the front end. I stumbled upon this
because I mistyped the name of a function, and was wondering
why the call to it had no effect -- very, very deceiving.
The program can be linked and run, by the way, but doesn't
do anything useful.

Mark, I CC: you because this might be cause by the two-stage
name lookup, but I'm in no way sure whether that's the case.
I would really love to see this being fixed quickly, since
it's so mean and can take you a long time to find...

W.
>How-To-Repeat:

>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: