[Bug c++/29046] Failure to define friend functions for all template instatiations
--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 13:46 --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) Now we don't do that either but that is a different bug. Actually we do reject it with -pedantic so that is not a different bug after all but a change, a delerate change in fact. Are you sure that is a change at all? I tested using -pedantic . The compiler version I've used won't give a diagnostic without -pedantic, either. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29046
[Bug c++/29046] Failure to define friend functions for all template instatiations
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-12 22:17 --- Related to PR 19809, I think this actually is fixed now. Can ou report what version of 4.2.0 which you are using? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29046
[Bug c++/29046] Failure to define friend functions for all template instatiations
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-12 22:45 --- (In reply to comment #1) Related to PR 19809, I think this actually is fixed now. Can ou report what version of 4.2.0 which you are using? GNU C++ version 4.2.0 20060823 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29046
[Bug c++/29046] Failure to define friend functions for all template instatiations
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 03:49 --- (In reply to comment #0) Note, when you add: int i = ((x.g(x)), 3); a suitable diagnostic is emitted. Now we don't do that either but that is a different bug. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Known to fail||2.95 3.2.3 3.3.3 3.4.0 4.0.0 ||4.1.0 4.2.0 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-09-13 03:49:29 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29046
[Bug c++/29046] Failure to define friend functions for all template instatiations
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 03:57 --- (In reply to comment #3) Now we don't do that either but that is a different bug. Actually we do reject it with -pedantic so that is not a different bug after all but a change, a delerate change in fact. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29046