https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63268
David Kastrup <dak at gnu dot org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID |---
--- Comment #2 from David Kastrup <dak at gnu dot org> ---
class Deriv is not a class template. Deriv is an ordinary class with one base
class being the specialized Bass<int>.
Your argument (and the references) would be valid for
template <class T> class Deriv : Bass<T> { ... }
but that's not what the report is about. Digging through the C++11 draft
standard, I don't actually see that case covered at all (but then the draft
standard tends to give me a headache pretty fast).
I see no reason why in a non-template class definition the unspecialized
template name of a specialized base class should have any special state.
Assuming that you get further in the standard before headaches set in than I
do, could you cite the section that you derive your opinion from?
