--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-28 12:22 ---
Subject: Bug 21764
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 28 12:22:14 2006
New Revision: 116504
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116504
Log:
2006-03-20 Jason Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c++/2
--- Comment #12 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|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #11 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-21 03:19 ---
Subject: Bug 21764
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 o
--- Comment #10 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-13 06:46 ---
The semantics of this feature are pretty obvious for simple testcases. But
since there's no One Definition Rule for namespaces, it's perfectly valid for
different chunks of the same namespace to have different attrib
--
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
--- Comment #9 from geoffk at geoffk dot org 2005-11-18 19:39 ---
Subject: Re: visibility attributes on namespace scope
On 17/11/2005, at 10:15 PM, jason at redhat dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #8 from jason at redhat dot com 2005-11-18 06:15
> ---
> Subject: Re: visibilit
--- Comment #8 from jason at redhat dot com 2005-11-18 06:15 ---
Subject: Re: visibility attributes on namespace scope
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> What do you mean, "less or equal visibility to their enclosing scope?"
Where default > protected > hidden > internal, if a class
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-17 23:53 ---
What do you mean, "less or equal visibility to their enclosing scope?"
My meta-goal is to try and give namespace and class scope visibilty attributes
similar meanings. Do you think this is worthwhile, possible, and do
--- Comment #6 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-17 22:55 ---
Why do the examples want to have a namespace (or class) with default visibility
nested within one with hidden visibility? The other way around makes sense,
but this seems nonsensical. It seems to me that nested scope
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-04 17:05 ---
In addition to the current ability to put visibility attributes on file and
class scope, the ability to put visibility attributes on namespace scope is
desired.
The syntax is straight forward extension of existing visi
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-04 13:05 ---
*** Bug 24668 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21764
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-26
20:10 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-26 15:57
---
nested namespaces should work the same as nested classes.
:)
Since that that doesn't seem to be defined anywhere (am I wrong, or should I
open a tracker for that in bugzilla), I'd say:
case 1:
namespace out
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-05-26
10:18 ---
Please, explicitally specify how you would like this to work with nested
namespaces.
Also, whoever implements this should also make sure it works correctly with
namespace:
namespace N __attribute__((visib
14 matches
Mail list logo
