This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: g++ regression - or not ?

To: "Dirk Mueller" <dmuell at gmx dot net>
Subject: Re: g++ regression - or not ?
From: "Artem Khodush" <artem at duma dot gov dot ru>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:09:04 +0400
>Received: from artem by mailsrv.duma.gov.ru (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)id NAA16848; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:12:00 +0400
Cc: <gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org>
References: <20010603002006.A11757@rotes20.wohnheim.uni-kl.de> <007701c0ecc8$75e17ca0$545a9090@duma.gov.ru> <or7kyst5j5.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <20010604215833.A16175@rotes20.wohnheim.uni-kl.de>

Dirk Mueller wrote:
> 
> Any comment on the other part of the question ? why does gcc allow calling a 
> static method with a "this" pointer ? 

just because it's allowed in the c++ language.

>and not even warn about it ?

Boilerplate answer: 
because no one bothered to implement the warning and/or considered it useful.

References:
- g++ regression - or not ?
  - From: Dirk Mueller
- Re: g++ regression - or not ?
  - From: Artem Khodush
- Re: g++ regression - or not ?
  - From: Alexandre Oliva
- Re: g++ regression - or not ?
  - From: Dirk Mueller

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]