http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51630
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|CLOSED |RESOLVED
Resolution|WONTFIX |INVALID
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-21
16:08:15 UTC ---
(Setting status back to RESOLVED+INVALID, we don't use CLOSED in GCC's
bugzilla, and WONTFIX is not appropriate because no G++ dev has agreed there is
a bug here and said it won't be fixed.)
(In reply to comment #0)
>
> template<typename T>
> const T & max(const T & x, const T & y){
> return (x < y) ? y : x;
> }
This template has valid syntax. It follows the rules of the C++ grammar.
Whether it can be compiled depends on the template arguments.
> struct name {};
>
> void test3(){
> name x, y, z;
> z = max(x, y); // error name doesn't have < operator
That function call also has valid syntax. It follows the rules of the C++
grammar.
> This looks like a bug to me. For what it's worth, this second example fails
> to
> compile with MSVC 9.0 pointing to an error for lack of operator < as one would
> expect.
It fails to *compile* with G++ too, but using -fsyntax-only doesn't do
compilation.
(In reply to comment #7)
> what I expected was that -fsyntax-only would run the normal process but skip
> the code generation. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation from
> the
> name of the option and the simple description of it.
>
> Also I wouldn't characterize the program as not having any syntax errors. The
> first example
>
> name test2(){
> name x, y;
> return (x < y) ? y : x;
> }
>
> generates an compile time error as one would expect. If the same code were
> placed inside a macro, it would also provoke an error. Then you move it into
> at template - and voila - no syntax error.
Templates are not just fancy macros, you know C++ well enough to know that.
> This is not regular or intuitive
> behavior. When you tested it you also expected to see an error - to the
> extent
> you tried on several versions of gcc.
When I tested it I *did* see an error. I tested several versions because I was
trying to reproduce your reported lack of an error, because I missed you were
using -fsyntax-only
> If your asking me what I want, I would respond that the current behavior of
> the
> -fsyntax-only is inconsistent and confusing and has room for improvement.
> It's
> not much of an answer to say "don't do that". Taken to it's logical
> conclusion, you might just skip emission of compile time errors all together
> and replace them with the admonition - don't write incorrect code !
That's not the logical conclusion, it's a strawman. If a user complains that
omitting the -g flag causes there to be no debug symbols in their objects,
they've apparently misunderstood the purpose of the option and "don't do that"
is a reasonable answer.
