Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:12:04 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: hackers@freebsd.org Cc: n@nectar.com, archie@whistle.com Subject: Re: c++ error Message-ID: <200009141612.JAA02297@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <20000914083032.B16624@spawn.nectar.com> References: <200009140019.RAA04988@bubba.whistle.com> <200009140036.RAA01292@vashon.polstra.com> <20000913230227.A15302@spawn.nectar.com> <20000914083032.B16624@spawn.nectar.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <20000914083032.B16624@spawn.nectar.com>, Jacques A. Vidrine <n@nectar.com> wrote: > In summary, gcc has a kluge to work around a bug in the C++ > standard. It looks like you and Justin Archie. > have both found edge cases where the gcc kluge loses. If you can > come up with a reasonable test case that reproduces the problem, > perhaps it can be PR'd to the GCC folks? Actually, I don't have a test case. I was only able to make it fail when I moved <netinet/in.h> out of /usr/include -- which disables the gcc kludge. I hope that Archie will be able to come up with a test case that demonstrates the failure. BTW, Archie, there are 3 places in the gcc code which can produce that diagnostic: 1 in "cp/class.c" and 2 in "cp/decl.c". Search for "with same name as" and you'll find them. It would be useful to find out which one of those is the culprit in your failing case. > As per the PR, I'm against #ifdef'ing structures like ip_opts for C++, > since it is likely that a later C++ standard will be corrected. I can't argue with that. I don't like my "solution" very much either. :-) John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200009141612.JAA02297>