------- Comment #8 from schaub-johannes at web dot de 2010-06-06 01:01 ------- (In reply to comment #6) > Dup of bug 15272. >
I don't know about the internals of GCC, but from a Standard point of view, the code in that bug shows a different problem than the code in my bug report. In my bug report the problem is that dependent base classes are considered during dependent name lookup. But in that other bug report, "f" is not a dependent name at all. It is *made* dependent by the other name in the non-dependent base (i don't know why, but maybe GCC prepends the "implicit this" prematurely, and then makes it dependent that way by thinking the name originally was "this->f" - but this is just a guess!). But in any case, my bug-report does not seem to be a duplicate of that one. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43282
