--- Comment #11 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-17 11:48 ---
OK. I've reverted these anonymous namespace conversions.
Namespace that are just trying to squester name lookup should be spelled as
nested "detail" namespaces. Namespaces that are trying to prohibit exports via
inte
--- Comment #10 from jason at redhat dot com 2006-09-07 00:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] libstdc++ vs. anonymous namespaces
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> This is precisely one reason why anonymous namespaces are useful. It provides
> a
> very viceral way to sanity check
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-04 15:22 ---
> Furthermore, defining _Tag in an anonymous namespace will cause the compiler
> to
> give all functions with _Tag in their signature internal linkage. I don't
> understand why you would want this.
This is precisely
--- Comment #8 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-31 08:20 ---
In general, I think using the anonymous namespace in headers is not what you
want.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28514
--- Comment #7 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-31 08:16 ---
The testcase gives the same errors for me when compiled as normal C++ as in PCH
mode.
The problem seems to be that you're removing the Rope_constants namespace name
and creating a name lookup collision between the _S_
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-29 05:25 ---
I think this is 4.2 regression now but I need to reduce it.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
