This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44625

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:05:45 -0400
Subject: Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44625
References: <4E031E9C.8090502@oracle.com> <4E0352EF.6000007@redhat.com> <4E035C0C.2070407@oracle.com> <4E035FF6.4050209@redhat.com> <4E03613B.2020302@oracle.com> <4E036350.7010700@redhat.com>

Actually, 9.5 says

A union of the form union { member-specification } ; is called an anonymous union; it defines an unnamed object of unnamed type. The member-specification of an anonymous union shall only define non-static data members. [ Note: Nested types and functions cannot be declared within an anonymous union. — end note ]

So we should be able to just reject nested anonymous aggregates and not worry about how to make them work.

Jason

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44625
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44625
  - From: Paolo Carlini

References:
- [C++ Patch] PR 44625
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44625
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44625
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44625
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44625
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] PR 44625
  - From: Jason Merrill

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