This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/16929] [3.4/3.5 Regression] ICE on taking address of member in default parameter to member function
- From: "reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 12 Aug 2004 15:10:18 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/16929] [3.4/3.5 Regression] ICE on taking address of member in default parameter to member function
- References: <20040809093141.16929.niemayer@isg.de>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de 2004-08-12 15:10 -------
Subject: Re: [3.4/3.5 Regression] ICE on taking address of
member in default parameter to member function
On 12 Aug, mark at codesourcery dot com wrote:
>>Mark, I don't think your fix for PR 16929 is the right approach.
>>We still accept code like the following:
>>
>>=====================================
>>template<typename> struct A {};
>>
>>template<typename T> struct B
>>{
>> A<T> a;
>>
>> void foo(A<T> = a);
>>};
>>=====================================
>>
>>which is invalid IMHO (we still reject it on the 3.3 branch as does
>>icc with -strict_ansi).
>>
> My fix is certainly going to do no harm, and it probably helps with
> other situations that involve explicit use of the "this" keyword in the
> default arguments. (Like "x = this").
>
> The standard doesn't really say whether you have to diagnose this at
> declaration time, or instantiation time. You're right that it's
> generally nice to catch things early. You can file a PR, but I think
> it's a QoI issue, or a regression in terms of diagnostic quality.
I actually wanted to point out a different problem:
The problem is, that the default parameter "a" is not even diagnosed at
instantiation time. Note, it's "a" instead of "&a"!
Sorry for packing two unrelated issues in my new testcase.
So here's a new one that focusses on one issue.
===========================================
template<typename> struct A {};
template<typename T> struct B
{
A<T> a;
void foo(A<T> = a);
};
template struct B<int>;
===========================================
As suggested, I'll open a new PR for the QoI issue you mentioned.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16929