https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106756
Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[13 Regression] Overbroad |[CWG1699] Overbroad
|friendship for nested |friendship for nested
|classes |classes
Last reconfirmed| |2022-09-12
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to S. Davis Herring from comment #2)
> That said, one can make a similar argument along the lines of "B is a
> member-declaration of A, and so f is part of a member-declaration itself",
Exactly.
> which puts us back on the old question of whether it matters whether the
> friend is defined inside the class. Indeed, GCC still rejects the example
> modified to use
>
> int f(A::B*) {return A::i;}
Yes, because there the definition of f is not (part of) a member-declaration.
Friends defined in the class body are different in various ways from normal
functions that happen to be friends; it makes sense to me for this to be one
such.
Suspending pending the resolution of CWG1699.
