c++/10446: ICE on a definition of a nonexistent member function of a nested class in a class template

c++/10446: ICE on a definition of a nonexistent member function of a nested class in a class template

[kparz]

>Number:         10446
>Category:       c++
>Synopsis:       ICE on a definition of a nonexistent member function of a nested class in a class template
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          ice-on-illegal-code
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Mon Apr 21 02:26:01 UTC 2003
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Krzysztof Parzyszek
>Release:        3.4 20030419 (experimental)
>Organization:
>Environment:
System: FreeBSD arcturus.student.iastate.edu 4.8-STABLE FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE #24: Mon Apr 14 21:37:07 CDT 2003 kparz@arcturus.student.iastate.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/ARCTURUS i386


	
host: i386-unknown-freebsd4.8
build: i386-unknown-freebsd4.8
target: i386-unknown-freebsd4.8
configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/u/gcc-20030419 --enable-languages=c,c++,f77
>Description:
Attempt to provide an out-of-class definition of a nonexistent member function of a class nested in a class template causes an ICE.  An ICE also occurs if the definition of the nested class `I' is removed.
>How-To-Repeat:
template <class T> struct L { struct I {}; };
template <class T> void L<T>::I::foo() {}

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

Re: c++/10446: ICE on a definition of a nonexistent member function of a nested class in a class template

[Giovanni Bajo]

The following reply was made to PR c++/10446; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo@libero.it>
To: <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>,
	<kparz@iastate.edu>,
	<gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
	<nobody@gcc.gnu.org>,
	<gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/10446: ICE on a definition of a nonexistent member function of a nested class in a class template
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:26:49 +0200

 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&p
 r=10446
 
 Confirmed. It's an ICE on error recovery, present on 3.2/3.3/3.4. I rate
 this as a regression since 2.95 was correctly recovering.
 
 Giovanni Bajo