https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27775
--- Comment #5 from Rich Newman ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> Clang 3.0 also reject this, so I am not sure whether is actually valid, but
> the repeated messages are suspicious.
>
EDG accepts it, and I can see nothing
Component: translation
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: rnewman at compubrite dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 41480
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41480&action=edit
Source file and generated assembly code showing the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11393
--- Comment #21 from Rich Newman 2012-10-25
23:48:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
The EDG front-end also accepts the code fragment from comment 19 without any
diagnostic message at all.
In my opinion, floating point literals are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27775
Rich Newman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.0.0 |4.5.1
Known to fail|
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rnewman at compubrite dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27775
--- Comment #17 from rnewman at compubrite dot com 2005-11-07 17:39 ---
I concede the argument.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24680
--- Comment #8 from rnewman at compubrite dot com 2005-11-05 01:55 ---
But 14.6.2.1 says: "Inside a template, some constructs have semantics which may
differ from one instantiation to another. Such a construct depends on the
template parameters."
14.6.2.2 [Example
templa
--- Comment #6 from rnewman at compubrite dot com 2005-11-05 01:29 ---
Just to be clear:
List *is* type dependent.
List::D is *not*.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24680
--- Comment #4 from rnewman at compubrite dot com 2005-11-05 01:21 ---
See 14.6.2.1 "Dependent names" and 14.6.3 "Non Dependent name"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24680
--- Comment #2 from rnewman at compubrite dot com 2005-11-05 01:13 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Hmm, GCC seems to think "size ? 1 : d->size" is type-dependent in a way it is
> as D is type dependent.
I disagree. D is not type depenendent at all -- it is a struct
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rnewman at compubrite dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18409
11 matches
Mail list logo
