Re: pgadmin3 not compliant with gcc-3.4 (?)

From: Raphaël Enrici <blacknoz(at)club-internet(dot)fr>
To: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgadmin3 not compliant with gcc-3.4 (?)
Date: 2004-08-15 10:01:24
Message-ID: 411F3474.9010803@club-internet.fr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers

Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Well,
>
> seems GCC 3.4 isn't compliant with C++...

:)

> Raphaël Enrici wrote:
>
>> > EVT_CHECKBOX(XRCID("chkEnabled"), dlgJob::OnChange)
>> > EVT_COMBOBOX(XRCID("cbJobclass"), dlgJob::OnChange)
>>
> <snip>
>> class A
>> {
>> public:
>> void pub_func();
>> protected:
>> void prot_func();
>> private:
>> void priv_func();
>> };
>>
>> class B : public A
>> {
>> public:
>> void foo()
>> {
>> &A::pub_func; // OK, pub_func is accessible through A
>> &A::prot_func; // error, cannot access prot_func through A
>> &A::priv_func; // error, cannot access priv_func through A
>>
>> &B::pub_func; // OK, pub_func is accessible through B
>> &B::prot_func; // OK, can access prot_func through B (within B)
>> &B::priv_func; // error, cannot access priv_func through B
>> }
>> };
>
>
> This is plain crazy. So I may call A::prot_func(), but not retrieve it's
> address? What if I also have a B::prot_func?
> Sorry, this is a *bug*.

Seems gcc team does not agree...
Can you take a look at these please and tell what you understand ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15308
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11174
They are the ones coming to the conclusion quoted before.

Can you tell me where I can find the C++ spec they are all talking about
please ?

Regards,
Raphaël

In response to

Responses

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Pflug 2004-08-15 11:10:54 Re: pgadmin3 not compliant with gcc-3.4 (?)
Previous Message Raphaël Enrici 2004-08-15 00:06:10 pgadmin3 not compliant with gcc-3.4 (?)