On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:02:59PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:08:37PM +0200, tbp wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 2005 1:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hope that helps,
> > Yes, thanks and for once gcc warning was explicit enough (with a hint
> > abo
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:08:37PM +0200, tbp wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2005 1:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hope that helps,
> Yes, thanks and for once gcc warning was explicit enough (with a hint
> about namespace) for me to fix it.
:-)
It might be even better if the error indi
On Apr 4, 2005 1:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hope that helps,
Yes, thanks and for once gcc warning was explicit enough (with a hint
about namespace) for me to fix it.
I stand corrected.
tbp wrote:
Sorry for the noise, but i don't own a copy of that byzantine standard.
np. to paraphrase another thread 'here's 18$, go get yourself one'[1]
nathan
[1] available electronically from ansi or iso or some web site.
--
Nathan Sidwell:: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:03:19PM +0200, tbp wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2005 12:50 PM, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > GCC 3.4 *does* whine, and I think Intel will in strict mode.
> Can't get neither gcc 3.4.1 to whine about it (-Wall) nor icc 8.1 with
> the highest warning level enabled.
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:15:07PM +0200, tbp wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2005 11:54 AM, Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Am i missing something obvious?
> > well, not 'obvious', but that is what [14.7.3]/2 says.
> I especially don't quite get why specialization have to be defined
> that way
On Apr 4, 2005 12:50 PM, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GCC 3.4 *does* whine, and I think Intel will in strict mode.
Can't get neither gcc 3.4.1 to whine about it (-Wall) nor icc 8.1 with
the highest warning level enabled.
On Apr 4, 2005 12:21 PM, Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's not a declaration, it's a definition of an already declared fn.
> the case you had was a definition that was _also_ a declaration.
[...]
> See the difference?
Yes, and i know about it...
> Although it is kind of quirky tha
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:47:56AM +0200, tbp wrote:
> Hello,
>
> i'm a bit puzzled by the behaviour of gcc4 (old 4.0 & recent 4.1
> snapshots) regarding how template specialization should be qualified
> wrt namespace:
[snip]
> Other compilers (gcc 3.4.x, msvc2k3, icc8.1) don't whine.
GCC 3.4 *d
tbp wrote:
On Apr 4, 2005 11:54 AM, Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am i missing something obvious?
well, not 'obvious', but that is what [14.7.3]/2 says.
I especially don't quite get why specialization have to be defined
that way when non specialized version don't have to, ie that is leg
On Apr 4, 2005 11:54 AM, Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Am i missing something obvious?
> well, not 'obvious', but that is what [14.7.3]/2 says.
I especially don't quite get why specialization have to be defined
that way when non specialized version don't have to, ie that is legit:
n
tbp wrote:
Hello,
i'm a bit puzzled by the behaviour of gcc4 (old 4.0 & recent 4.1
snapshots) regarding how template specialization should be qualified
wrt namespace:
It has to be written this way:
namespace dummy {
template<> void dummy::foo::f<666>() {}
or
template<> void foo::f<
Hello,
i'm a bit puzzled by the behaviour of gcc4 (old 4.0 & recent 4.1
snapshots) regarding how template specialization should be qualified
wrt namespace:
namespace dummy {
struct foo {
template void f() {}
};
}
template<> void dummy::foo::f<666>() {}
testcase.c
13 matches
Mail list logo
