http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11764
--- Comment #25 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-15 13:36:11 UTC --- (In reply to comment #24) > OK, I read some explanations in the duplicates but still don't know why this > should be valid code. That is a question for the standards committee. > IMO it makes no sense to write A:A:A:B and given the facts that > 1) people don't write this intentionally > 2) people expect this to be invalid (see number of duplicates) And the cases that are invalid were fixed by my patch. > 3) some other compiler don't compile this Which? Recent versions of EDG and clang both accept the testcase in comment 22. > couldn't you at least give us a warning (e. g. with -pedantic)? -pedantic means "strictly enforce the standard"; since the standard says that the testcase in comment 22 is well-formed, -pedantic should not complain about it. Someone could add another warning flag to warn about this, but it isn't a priority for me.
