http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32402
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-10-31 12:42:00 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > > I m sure this IS a bug , and I cant understand why this (documented) bug is > still new 3 years later. It's a bug, and should be fixed, but it's not critical and workaround is available. > I m not sure this is ok with C++ grammar or semantic ( but I think it is ), I > m just sure this is a good thing to give microsoft and concurrent compilers > more customers who will not have the choice to move to linux/gcc. No need to exaggerate - simpler syntax can be used and the code will compile - this bug should not prevent anyone using GCC, claiming it does is silly. > Even if its not a bug, gcc should provide an "official" workaround and argue > on WHY this is not possible in gcc, while available without any problem with > most other compilers . There's a workaround in comment 5, it's been there for 3 years.
