--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-21 16:32 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-21 03:19 ---
Subject: Bug 19238
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar 21 03:19:06 2006
New Revision: 112239
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112239
Log:
PR c++/21764
* c-pragma.c (visstack): Move out of
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-03
16:14 ---
Yes, I agree that it seems logical for a static variable to have the same
visibility as its containing function, independently of whether or not that
containing function is a template instance.
--
http:
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-03
13:00 ---
Mark did some work on the visibility stuff, so I'm CC'ing him. Mark, this
sounds like a reasonable request to me. What do you think?
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From jbeulich at novell dot com 2005-01-03 12:47
---
I'm sorry, test case below. The expectation would be that the visibility
attribute gets inherited (as described above) from function template instances
and member functions of class template instances to their s
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-01-03
11:05 ---
We need a testcase, and a suggestion for the behaviour you are expecting of GCC.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
