--- Comment #5 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-23 20:55
---
On mainline the diagnostic for the second testcase got even worse:
bug.cc:3: error: no 'void A::foo()' member function declared in class 'A'
bug.cc:3: error: prototype for 'void A::foo()' does not match any in cla
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-13 19:04 ---
Working on it.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at g
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-14 22:07 ---
Subject: Bug 27211
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Aug 14 22:07:31 2007
New Revision: 127492
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=127492
Log:
/cp
2007-08-14 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c+
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-14 22:14 ---
Subject: Bug 27211
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Aug 14 22:13:45 2007
New Revision: 127493
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=127493
Log:
/cp
2007-08-14 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c+
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-08-14 22:16 ---
Fixed.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-22 20:27 ---
I don't know if it is that bogus. First it assumes if it is not defiend, it is
a normal member function and not a templated member function which seems
reasonable.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-05-26 15:29 ---
Confirmed, but low priority. One should just follow the first error message.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 11:04
---
Because of Steve's patch for PR28304 we now get the following message
for the second testcase:
bug.cc:3: error: no 'void A::foo()' member function declared in class 'A'
bug.cc:3: error: no 'void A::foo()' member f
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-04 21:54
---
Because of the fix for PR 28432, comment #3 is obsolete.
We are back to square one, i.e. the original bug report.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27211
