IRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: widman at gimpel dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27732
--- Comment #2 from widman at gimpel dot com 2006-05-23 15:10 ---
By the way: whoever tackles this may also want to take a look at:
template< int* p> struct A { };
template<> struct A<(int*)0>;
...which was made permissible by the recently-adopted wording that was p
return
type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: widman at gimpel dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28044
--- Comment #2 from widman at gimpel dot com 2006-06-15 18:51 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This works correctly in 4.2.0.
>
Ok; should the fix be back-ported to earlier versions? If not I guess this
should be a "WONTFIX".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28044
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: widman at gimpel dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29332
--- Comment #2 from widman at gimpel dot com 2006-10-03 16:38 ---
Ok, here's something that's a little closer to the original example:
class A;
class B;
extern B b;
struct C {
static int f( A& = b); // ERROR
};
class A{};
class B : public A {};
int n = C::f(
--- Comment #6 from widman at gimpel dot com 2007-08-02 15:56 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I should note that I do NOT want to see this bug fixed. I would prefer to hear
> that you won't "fix" it at all. So I can exploit this behavior as there is no
> st
--- Comment #8 from widman at gimpel dot com 2007-08-02 17:07 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Is it possible that rvalue references will give you an alternative for the
> > desired effect? See the relevant papers linked to from here:
>
--- Comment #9 from widman at gimpel dot com 2007-08-02 17:17 ---
See also:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29939
So it seems you should be able to play with it now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32658
--- Comment #7 from widman at gimpel dot com 2008-07-03 01:40 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Hi all,
I happen to be looking at something related to this issue and encountered this
GCC bug, so I thought I'd offer my observations.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> | Some
minor
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: widman at gimpel dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26950
--- Comment #2 from widman at gimpel dot com 2006-03-30 21:06 ---
Subject: Error diagnostic not issued for unacceptable result of lookup for a
name used in a nested-name-specifier
On Mar 30, 2006, at 2:56 PM, Daveed Vandevoorde wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> On Mar 30, 2006, a
--- Comment #3 from widman at gimpel dot com 2006-03-30 23:31 ---
Subject: Re: Error diagnostic not issued for unacceptable result of lookup for
a name used in a nested-name-specifier
On Mar 30, 2006, at 4:06 PM, widman at gimpel dot com wrote:
>
> So when I read that exce
--- Comment #4 from widman at gimpel dot com 2006-03-31 05:36 ---
Subject: Re: Error diagnostic not issued for unacceptable result of lookup for
a name used in a nested-name-specifier
On Mar 30, 2006, at 11:47 PM, Daveed Vandevoorde wrote:
>
> On Mar 30, 2006, at 4:06 PM,
14 matches
Mail list logo
