http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32402
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-10-31 11:31:01 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > Ok, I've read the bug report following a report from a friend, and after > checking various sources I've come to the following conclusion: > > new pure(*[3]) is not valid That's not what the bug report contains though! It's "new (pure(*[3]))" with an extra set of parentheses around the type, so according to the grammar "pure(*[3])" must be parsed as a type-id, there is no initializer > When parsed, "new pure(*[3])" is parsed as "new instance of class pure with > parameter *[3]". Right, and it's not accepted, see comment 5: > - "list = new pure(*[3]);" => does not compile But that's a different case to "new (pure(*[3]))" which is what this PR is about. > Anyway I see no logical reason why one would want to put part of its > allocation > into parenthesis. > > "new pure*[3]" should be perfectly acceptable, is easier to read, and is > accepted by GCC without problems. That's beside the point, if the grammar is valid then it should be accepted. > Jonathan Wakely's example with decltype() is non related as decltype() is a > new > compiler keyword, which is valid in this context, but has nothing to do with > the original problem. It demonstrates that GCC is happy to allocate an array of pure* using different syntax, and that the syntax works for declaring an automatic variable. > Anyway I believe this bug report should be closed before more people spend > time looking at C++ references for this. I disagree, it's a bug, and the code is accepted by other compilers.
