------- Comment #12 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-09-25 04:22 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> Here is what the C++ standard says about linkage:
> A template name may have linkage (3.5). A template, a template explicit
> specialization (14.7.3), or a class
> template partial specialization shall not have C linkage. If the linkage of
> one
> of these is something other
> than C or C++, the behavior is implementation defined.
> Template definitions shall obey the one definition
> rule (3.2).
>
>
> So this is implementation defined as far as I can tell, and I think this is
> really a bad choice to accept this code.
Uh, can you justify your opinion? Neither can I see why this would be bad
style nor can I see why you would think that anything in the code in
comment #5 would be implementation defined (nothing here has linkage other
than C or C++ that would have been listed in the paragraph you cite).
W.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bangerth at dealii dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32400
