------- Comment #5 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-08 22:40
-------
Simon --
It took me a while to decide that this patch was OK -- but it is. :-) I will
suggest a few changes to make it more obviously correct.
First, minor coding style nit: drop the else after the return that you've
introduced.
Second, we need some chapter-and-verse in here. Please avoid references like
"11.4.8" as the numbers tend to move around as the standard changes. (For
example, I don't think 11.4.8 is the right reference in either the published
standard or the current WP.)
For the comment on the gcc_asert, I would say:
/* A non namespace-scope binding can only be hidden if we
are in a local class, due to friend declarations. In particular,
consider:
void f() {
struct A {
friend struct B;
void g() { B* b; } // error: B is hidden
}
struct B {};
}
The standard says that "B" is a local class in "f" (but not nested within
"A") -- but that name lookup for "B" does not find this declaration until
it is declared directly with "f".
In particular:
[class.friend]
If a friend declaration appears in a local class and the name specified
is an unqualified name, a prior declaration is looked up without considering
scopes that are outside the innermost enclosing non-class scope....
For a friend class declaration, if there is no prior declaration, the class
that is specified belongs to the innermost enclosing non-class scope, but
if it is subsequently referenced, its name is not found by name lookup until
a matching declaration is provided in the innermost enclosing nonclass
scope.
*/
OK with that change.
Thanks,
-- Mark
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |simartin at users dot
| |sourceforge dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30917
