Bug 20308

Summary:	parser thinks something is a start of a template-id when it is just less than
Product:	gcc	Reporter:	Ivan Godard <igodard>
Component:	c++	Assignee:	Not yet assigned to anyone <unassigned>
Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE
Severity:	normal	CC:	chsalvia, fang, foehst, gcc-bugs, igodard, pinskia, reichelt
Priority:	P2	Keywords:	rejects-valid
Version:	3.4.0
Target Milestone:	---
Host:		Target:
Build:		Known to work:
Known to fail:	3.3.3 3.4.0 4.0.0 2.95.3 3.2.3	Last reconfirmed:	2005-11-02 02:04:28
Bug Depends on:	11814
Bug Blocks:
Attachments:	Compiler output (-v -save-temps) Source code (-save-temps) (compressed)

Description Ivan Godard 2005-03-03 21:46:38 UTC

In the attached code, the parser gets confused by a use of operator< in the body 
of a function template. If the operator is changed (to ">" or "==" for example) 
the code compiles. I've not been able to figure out why it thinks it's in a 
constant expression. Changing the variable names involved doesn't make a 
difference, so it doesn't see to be a consequence of name clashes.

Ivan

Comment 1 Ivan Godard 2005-03-03 21:47:44 UTC

Created attachment 8321 [details]
Compiler output (-v -save-temps)

Comment 2 Ivan Godard 2005-03-03 21:48:30 UTC

Created attachment 8322 [details]
Source code (-save-temps) (compressed)

Comment 3 Andrew Pinski 2005-03-03 23:25:21 UTC

Hmm, this is the reduced testcase (but I don't know if this is invalid as Comeau also rejects it but I think 
it is valid):
template<typename> int nick(int e);
template<int> struct operation{int nick;};
template<int s>
bool alphaMnemonic(const operation<s>& o1, const operation<s>& o2)
{
  return o1.nick < o2.nick;
}

If nick was not a template or not declated we accept it, if alphaMnemonic is not a template we accept it.
I think we have a name lookup problem really.  if we want o1.nick as a template we need the template 
keyword.  This is not a regression if this is valid code, I really think it is.  ICC 8.0 accepts it.

Comment 4 Wolfgang Bangerth 2005-07-23 21:29:42 UTC

There is another PR about exactly this problem somewhere.

Comment 5 Ivan Godard 2005-07-24 00:29:05 UTC

Sorry, I'll try to be more original in my PRs :-)

Comment 6 Wolfgang Bangerth 2005-07-24 04:51:33 UTC

Don't worry, I'm just trying to tighten the net of PRs somehow -- if someone 
comes around to fix this PR, she might take a little more time than I have 
right now to find that duplicate PR...

Comment 7 Andrew Pinski 2005-11-19 18:34:50 UTC

*** Bug 24939 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 8 Andrew Pinski 2008-09-20 02:56:40 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 10200 ***

Comment 9 Andrew Pinski 2010-12-07 17:24:19 UTC

*** Bug 46839 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***