------- Comment #38 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-08-29 03:15 ------- (In reply to comment #37) > No it is not, it is still violating One definition rule as struct X > will have a different member type for pimpl_ in each TU (this violates > the whole idea of types being exported).
It is a good question in itself whether pimpl_ has a type at all -- it's a pointer to an incomplete type in any case :-) > This warning is not about style, it is about warning when you are most > likely going to violat C++'s One definition rule with anonymous > namespaces and you do violate it here as explained above. Yes, I agree that whoever uses this idiom is walking a very fine line indeed, and most definitely is violating at least good style. I can certainly live with a warning. W. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29365
