https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101739
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101739
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, I need to look into it. He might be right, I'm not sure yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101739
--- Comment #4 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> For consistency (and to avoid reports like this one) we might want to uglify
> them anyway. But it's not a correctness issue, just stylistic.
I think I might be the onl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101739
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For consistency (and to avoid reports like this one) we might want to uglify
them anyway. But it's not a correctness issue, just stylistic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101739
--- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> These changes are not strictly necessary.
>
> "base" is a reserved name, because of move_iterator::base() etc.
>
> and "i" is a reserved name, because of operator""i()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101739
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
These changes are not strictly necessary.
"base" is a reserved name, because of move_iterator::base() etc.
and "i" is a reserved name, because of operator""i() in .
So users cannot define those as macro
