http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55436
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-12-18 15:29:59 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > > If it was a serious problem it would have been reported before by more > > people. > > I'm not sure if the degree of popularity of a bug should diminish its > seriousness. If noone else has ever reported it in all the time it's been in GCC it's not causing a lot of problems, then it's not causing serious problems to most GCC users. It's not a regression and there's a workaround (qualify the names) so it's not P2. > This is an "accepts-invalid, rejects-valid, wrong-code" bug, > which is pretty nasty as far as bugs go. Almost any name lookup bug can be turned into all three categories, it doesn't alter its seriousness. > The use of C++ is expanding (including > GCC's own code base), meaning this bug is going to bite more people as time > goes on. It will get fixed, it doesn't need to be P2 for that.
