http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31423
--- Comment #10 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-21 18:19:00 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Oct 21 18:18:55 2011
New Revision: 180309
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180309
Log:
/cp
2011-10-21 Paolo Carlini
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31423
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-bugs at g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31423
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #9 from P
--- Comment #8 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-08-06 09:51
---
I don't think any of those tests would be made correct simply by replacing 'f'
with '&f'
Maybe they would have been accepted by GCC 2.95 with the ampersand present, but
current GCC correctly requires '&C::f'
I k
--- Comment #7 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-05 18:47 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Examples where the ampersand probably makes more sense are:
>
> g++.dg/rtti/typeid8.C
> g++.dg/conversion/memfn2.C
> g++.old-deja/g++.other/asm2.C
Possibly, but in all those cases, it may also
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-05 18:19 ---
Examples where the ampersand probably makes more sense are:
g++.dg/rtti/typeid8.C
g++.dg/conversion/memfn2.C
g++.old-deja/g++.other/asm2.C
Not so sure about:
g++.dg/template/pseudodtor3.C
g++.dg/template/using14.C
S
--- Comment #5 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-05 17:57 ---
However, one of my gripes with the previous error message is that it's
just too obscure: where did I forget the '&', and why would I have wanted
to write them in the first place? It could have said "did you forget to
take
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-05 17:54 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> &c.f isn't even valid, it should be &C::f
>
> I didn't check the code, but that message isn't used for member variables or
> nested types, so if it does only apply to member functions then I th
--- Comment #3 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-08-05 16:40
---
&c.f isn't even valid, it should be &C::f
I didn't check the code, but that message isn't used for member variables or
nested types, so if it does only apply to member functions then I think
changing '&' to '()'
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-05 15:33 ---
Perhaps we could just mention both '&' and '()'? It seems a bit difficult to
check all the conditions that you mention.
BTW, shouldn't it say 'member function'? Can this be anything different than a
member function?
--- Comment #1 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2007-04-02 17:09 ---
Confirmed.
W.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
11 matches
Mail list logo
