------- Comment #12 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-15 23:12
-------
I agree that this should be a P1.
Why do we think I<T>::B is a non-dependent type? It should be considered
dependent, because we may have a specialization of I for which B is not a base
class. There are some cases in the parser where we must resolve dependent
types; I wonder if we're incorrectly doing that in this case.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P2 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22136
