--- 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 #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-05 03:18
---
Just for later reference the defintion of what a dependent name is slightly
different now after the DR:
A name is a member of an unknown specialization if the name is a qualified-id
in which the nested-name-specifi
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-05 03:10
---
hold one for a second there is a defect report about this:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#224
See also:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2000/n1251.html
So EDG just
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-05 02:49
---
(In reply to comment #13)
> The error which EDG front-end gives:
> "ComeauTest.c", line 33: error: a reference of type "int &" (not
> const-qualified)
> cannot be initialized with a value of type "double"
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-05 02:33
---
Ok, here is a real testcase which shows that EDG gets it really wrong:
#include
void resize(double&)
{
printf("resize::double\n");
}
void resize(int&)
{
printf("resize::int\n");
}
template
struct List
{
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-05 02:23
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> This is really invalid code as List::D::size does not exist but it can
> only be diagnost at instaination time.
Oh and resize is not declared either but since d->size is dependent as sh
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-05 02:19
---
So it looks like we have found an EDG bug and not a GCC one.
As for
>There is no explicit dependence for List::D on the template parameter.
>The semantics of D do not change depending upon the instantiation of T.
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-05 02:18
---
(In reply to comment #9)
Never mind that, the numbers have changed a little.
Take the following example:
template
struct List
{
struct D { int size; };
D *d;
List &fill(const T &t, int size = -1);
}
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-05 01:58 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Hmm, I assume you are looking at C++03 and not C++98. I was looking at C++98,
maybe there was some defect report about this.
--
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
template struct
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-05 01:35 ---
List::D is by
14.6.2.1 pargagraph 1 point 2:
a qufified-id with a nested-name-specifier which contains a class-name that
names a dependent type of whos unqualified-if names a dependent type.
So by those rules it i
--- 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 #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-05 01:24 ---
this better be type dependent, otherwise it is just useless really.
--
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 #3 from ppluzhnikov at charter dot net 2005-11-05 01:17 ---
Another variation of the same theme:
template
List &List::fill(const T &t, int size)
{
this->resize(1);
this->resize(d->size);
return *this;
}
$ /usr/local/gcc-4.1/bin/g++ -c junk.cc
# silently accepte
--- 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 containing
exactly o
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-05 00:55 ---
Hmm, GCC seems to think "size ? 1 : d->size" is type-dependent in a way it is
as D is type dependent. Someone else with more knowlege of the C++ standard
will have to comment.
Another testcase which shows the same i
17 matches
Mail list logo
