https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25322
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||
Resolution|---
--- Comment #4 from cfranz at aldon dot com 2006-05-11 23:27 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Would someone mind specifying what section of the standard this violates? We
> have a codebase that makes heavy use of (3).
Section 9.5. Furthermore, I was basing cases 2, 4, and 6 on the foll
--- Comment #3 from jvalenzu at infinite-monkeys dot org 2006-03-10 16:25
---
Would someone mind specifying what section of the standard this violates? We
have a codebase that makes heavy use of (3).
--
jvalenzu at infinite-monkeys dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-12-09 05:20 ---
Confirmed. We should at least complain about cases 1, 3, 5. As does,
incidentally, icc with -Xc -ansi.
W.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-08 23:36 ---
Hmm, I actually want to say that case 2, 4, and 6 are actually valid (But I
have not looked at the standard) as anonymous types are special.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
