--- Comment #6 from uwe at netbsd dot org 2010-02-22 04:47 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> What confuses me is that explictly qualifying the offending call as
>
> Node::test(op.i)
>
> makes it compile correctly.
I mean as far as I understand Node::test should resolve to the same sibl
--- Comment #5 from uwe at netbsd dot org 2010-02-22 04:45 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> What I meant to say is this: during parsing ...
So do I get this right (knowing nothing about g++ internals) that in the first
phase ("during parsing") the call to "test" is resolved to sibling be
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2010-02-22 04:29 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> But doesn't this error happens during instantiation as the error message
> indicates? If definition of Node::FooNode is commented out, the templates
> themselves are accepted.
What I meant to
--- Comment #3 from uwe at netbsd dot org 2010-02-22 04:08 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This is not a bug. Because the base class of Node::OpNode does not
> depend on template arguments, the members of the base class are
> visible in Node::OpNode::f(). On the other hand, since the base
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2010-02-22 03:56 ---
This is not a bug. Because the base class of Node::OpNode does not
depend on template arguments, the members of the base class are
visible in Node::OpNode::f(). On the other hand, since the base
class of Node::FooOpNode d
--- Comment #1 from uwe at netbsd dot org 2010-02-22 02:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=19932)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19932&action=view)
Test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43135
