From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-50337-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23528 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2002 14:50:45 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 23518 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2002 14:50:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO thinkpad.objectsecurity.cz) (217.112.132.110)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Apr 2002 14:50:44 -0000
Received: from karel (helo=localhost)
	by thinkpad.objectsecurity.cz with local-esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 16ywEg-0005tI-00; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 16:53:10 +0200
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 08:28:00 -0000
From: Karel Gardas <kgardas@objectsecurity.com>
X-X-Sender: karel@thinkpad.objectsecurity.cz
Reply-To: kgardas@objectsecurity.com
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: gcc 2.95.x interesting c++ parser error (bug).
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0204201637580.476-100000@thinkpad.objectsecurity.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00989.txt.bz2


Hi,

It looks like that c++ parser in gcc 2.95.x doesn't like some param names
like '__op' and '__rs'. These names confuse parser and then it produce
error messages regarding ''declaration of operator '<something>' as
non-function''

Here is small example:


class Foo
{
public:
    void
    method(char* __op_name); // OK

    //  gcc2.95-wrong-param-name-bug.cc:9: declaration of `operator ' as non-function
    //  gcc2.95-wrong-param-name-bug.cc:9: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
    void
    method2(int __op); // error

    void
    method3(long __reply_status); // OK

    //  gcc2.95-wrong-param-name-bug.cc:17: declaration of `operator >>' as non-function
    //  gcc2.95-wrong-param-name-bug.cc:17: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
    void
    method4(short __rs); // error
};

int
main()
{
    return 0;
}


I know that the main focus of development is concentrated on upcoming gcc
3.1 release, but I think that someone might be interested (for example
Debian or FreeBSD 4.x gcc maintainers) and so I've posted this email,
because it takes me some time to find exact place in my sources which
cause this bug (these sources are of course perfectly OK with gcc 3.1).

Cheers,

Karel

PS: Tested on Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 and FreeBSD 4.5.

bash-2.05$ gcc -v
Using builtin specs.
gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release) [FreeBSD]
bash-2.05$

thinkpad:~/cvs/mt-micosec-csiv2/mico$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.4/specs
gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease)
thinkpad:~/cvs/mt-micosec-csiv2/mico$
--
Karel Gardas                  kgardas@objectsecurity.com
ObjectSecurity Ltd.           http://www.objectsecurity.com