Re: [Corelinux-develop] g++ 2.96

[Frank V. C. <fr...@co...>]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> 
> [ Excuse me if I appear slow to answer, but I'm busy in fixing bugs I
> introduced in current gcc cvs. ]
> 
> "Christophe Prud'homme" <pru...@MI...> writes:
> 
> | > Well, that mess was my fault -- I think the right figure is probably 4.
> | > By now, most the testsuite failures should have gone.
> | Well g++ 2.96 did a very good job at finding some issues in the code
> | especially for the exceptions.
> 
> Hmm, now I'm confused, I'm unsure about the original topic...
> Anyway...
> 
> | one quick question if you don't mind:
> | - is a class forward declaration sufficient for exception
> |   or is the class interface needed also?
> |
> | class except;
> | class A
> | {
> |  public:
> | void f() throw(except);
> | };
> |
> | or
> |
> | <full class definition for except via #include for example>
> | class A
> | {
> |  public:
> | void f() throw(except);
> | };
> |
> | it seems that g++ 2.96 likes the second one and rejects the first one
> 
> Yes, the first construct is ill-formed since
> 
> 15.4/1:
>   [...] A type denoted in an exception-specification shall not be an
>   incomplte type.  A type denoted in an exception-specification shall
>   not denote a pointer or reference to an incomplte type, other than
>   void*, const void*, volatile void*, or const volatile const*.
> 
> -- Gaby

Yes, C. was just pointing out my laziness when I go from quick testing
of interface and definition to releasing and forgetting to replace the
foward declaration.

<grin>

-- 
Frank V. Castellucci