Hi,
gently pinging this. As you can see certainly isn't an high priority
issue but resolving it one way or the other seems pretty simple...
On 16/06/2017 15:47, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
submitter and Manuel analyzed this a while ago and came to the
conclusion - which I think is still valid vs the current working draft
- that strictly speaking this kind of code violates [dcl.dcl], thus a
pedwarn seems more suited than a plain warning. The below one-liner,
suggested by Manuel at the time, passes testing on x86_64-linux
together with my testsuite changes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg01193.html
Thanks!
Paolo.
