|Summary:||[meta-bug] C++98 standard conformance issues|
|Product:||gcc||Reporter:||Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke <amylaar>|
|Component:||c++||Assignee:||Not yet assigned to anyone <unassigned>|
|Severity:||normal||CC:||bkoz, fang, gcc-bugs, jason, nathan, webrown.cpp|
|Build:||Known to work:|
|Known to fail:||Last reconfirmed:||2006-11-15 17:17:33|
|Bug Depends on:||2316, 28985, 29027, 29040, 7221, 12333, 20039, 20416, 28986, 28988, 28989, 29018, 29024, 29039, 29041, 29043, 54216|
Description Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke 2006-11-15 15:13:13 UTC
Comment 1 Eric Gallager 2019-03-05 16:31:38 UTC
cc-ing C++ FE maintainers
Comment 2 Jonathan Wakely 2019-03-05 17:18:40 UTC
This doesn't seem a very useful meta-bug. Every bug with Component=c++ and Keywords=rejects-valid is a standard conformance issue. What's the point of this one?
Comment 3 Eric Gallager 2019-03-05 21:04:23 UTC
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > This doesn't seem a very useful meta-bug. Every bug with Component=c++ and > Keywords=rejects-valid is a standard conformance issue. > > What's the point of this one? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Feel free to close if non-useful.
Comment 4 Jonathan Wakely 2019-03-06 15:39:40 UTC
After discussion on IRC we've decided to close this. There are a number of C++98 conformance issues not tracked by this bug, and we don't have a meta-bug for c++11/c++14/c++17/... conformance, and the outstanding bugs it depends on (2316 12333 28985 29027 29040) are all also relevant to later standards, so are not specific to c++98 anyway. INVALID doesn't really describe the situation, but it'll do.