Re: c++/9443: [3.4 regression] ICE when accessing a nonstatic member as A::i

["Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>]

Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de> wrote:


> For the record:

I think this audit trail is too complex now. I'd rather split it up into
smaller new bug reports and close this one. You can still have a link in the
description to this PR in case it's really needed.

> * The ICE in the case with "A::i" is fixed (mainline as of gcc 20030406).
>   The error message, however, could still use some improvement:
>
>   PR9443A.cc: In member function `int B<<anonymous> >::foo() [with int
>      <anonymous> = 0]':
>   PR9443A.cc:15:   instantiated from here
>   PR9443A.cc:12: error: 'struct B<0>' has no member named 'i'
>
>   We tried to access A::i and not B<0>::i as the error message suggests.
>   This is as bad as the message on the 3.3 branch:
>
>   PR9443A.cc: In member function `int B<<anonymous> >::foo() [with int
>    <anonymous> = 0]':
>   PR9443A.cc:15:   instantiated from here
>   PR9443A.cc:12: error: type `A' is not a base type for type `B<0>'
>
>   In fact you can make the code legal if you derive B from A, so this
>   might actually help in some situations.

This should be filed as a confusing error message / change request. I
personally believe that mainline's message is even more confusing. The error
message should also at least mention that A::i is not a static member.
Comeau's error message is "a non-static member reference must be relative to
a specific object".
Would you please file this separately?

> * The accepts-illegal bug in the case "A::j" still persists on mainline.
>   I changed the synopsis to reflect the situation.

This is a very serious regression in my opionion. Would you please post it
in a separate and clear PR?

>   The boost problems regarding the 3.3 branch are probably a different
>   issue (an ICE in c_expand_expr, at c-common.c happens quite often -
>   the reason for the failure is usually buried elsewhere).
>   Alas there are no more recent results available on
>
>     http://cci.lbl.gov/boost/results/
>
>   The tests were performed with gcc 3.3-20030306. If the problems with the
>   3.3 branch persist, we should probably have a look at it. Could you test
>   it with a more recent compiler, Giovanni?

Sure, will do. If you think they are not related, this PR can be closed once
the new PRs are submitted.

Giovanni Bajo