On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:15:33AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/08/2015 06:54 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >On 12/07/2015 06:49 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >
> >>diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/pr68116.C
> >>gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/pr68116.C
> >>index e69de29..04ed901 100644
> >>--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/pr68116.C
> >>+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/pr68116.C
> >>@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> >>+// PR c++/68116
> >>+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> >>+
> >>+class C {
> >>+ void foo ();
> >>+ typedef void (C::*T) (int);
> >>+ static T b[];
> >>+};
> >>+C::T C::b[]
> >>+{
> >>+ T (&C::foo)
> >>+};
> >
> >The problem I have with approving C++ testcases is that I have no idea
> >whether this is valid or not or what it expresses. You should Cc Jason
> >(which I've now done).
>
> That's odd code--I don't approve of the cast in the initializer--but it is
> well-formed. OK.
Certainly we shouldn't ICE on this, as we used to, which is what I'm trying to
ensure here. The code looks weird indeed, but it's C++... ;)
Thanks,
Marek
