Your message dated Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:52:59 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bad syntax error on nested classes' member functions.
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Nov 2002 18:52:42 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Nov 11 12:52:41 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from cats-mx1.ucsc.edu (ucsc.edu) [128.114.129.36]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18BJfs-0007hR-00; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:52:40 -0600
Received: from chimaera.house (C9-0015.resnet.ucsc.edu [169.233.20.15])
by ucsc.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id gABIqO300054
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crafter.house ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [192.168.1.1])
by chimaera.house (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA31499
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:52:25 -0800
Received: from vectro by crafter.house with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 18BJfY-0007xH-00; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:52:20 -0800
From: Ian Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: g++-3.0: Bad syntax error on nested classes' member functions.
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.50
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:52:20 -0800
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-UCSC-CATS-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0
tests=SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Package: g++-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-7
Severity: normal
The source below makes G++-3.0 report a syntax error where none exists.
Basically it doesn't wait before giving up on the typename.
// Comment out to make it work.
#define BREAK
struct a {
struct b {
typedef unsigned int foo_t;
foo_t frobnicate();
};
};
#ifndef BREAK
a::b::foo_t a::b::frobnicate() {
}
#else
foo_t a::b::frobnicate() {
return 0;
}
#endif
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux crafter 2.4.19 #1 Fri Sep 27 18:25:53 PDT 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages g++-3.0 depends on:
ii gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4-7 The GNU C compiler.
ii gcc-3.0-base 1:3.0.4-7 The GNU Compiler Collection (base
ii libc6 2.2.5-14.3 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libstdc++3-dev 1:3.0.4-7 The GNU stdc++ library version 3 (
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 168706-done) by bugs.debian.org; 27 Dec 2002 11:57:50 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Dec 27 05:57:50 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13] (root)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18Rt7c-0000ky-00; Fri, 27 Dec 2002 05:57:49 -0600
Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [130.149.19.1])
by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01306
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:53:00 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) id gBRBqxF08779;
Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:52:59 +0100 (MET)
From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:52:59 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bad syntax error on nested classes' member functions.
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: VM 7.03 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.9 required=5.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Martin v. Loewis writes:
> This is not a bug in the compiler, but in your code. Looking at the
> declaration
closing the report.
