Hi,
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Kriang Lerdsuwanakij wrote:
Sure, this code compiles with 4.1 and 3.4 but doesn't compile with 4.0. Although the code is valid, I'd bet it doesn't work the way the programmer of the above code (or other 99% who doesn't track the standard closely) would expect.
What I would find ideal under these circumstances is that the patch which made it work in 4.1, _if it's not too intrusive_, be included in 4.0, even if it doesn't fix a regression in the strict sense.
I agree; that's why I asked to see the patches. I completely agree that this situation represents a regression from the user's point of view, even if technically the compiler wasn't doing the right thing before. I'm perfectly willing to consider patches to fix the problem.
At the same time, if the code in question doesn't mean what the person who wrote it wants it to mean (e.g., if it implicitly declares classes in the scope of the friendly class, rather than nominating other classes as friends), then that code should still be fixed. It's certainly in the long-term interest of KDE not to have spurious friend declarations around, and I'd expect that as a KDE distributor you would want to encourage them to use the syntax that means what they want, even in parallel to possibly fixing the compiler.
-- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304
