Re: pgadmin3 not compliant with gcc-3.4 (?)
От | Raphaël Enrici |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgadmin3 not compliant with gcc-3.4 (?) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 411F3474.9010803@club-internet.fr обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgadmin3 not compliant with gcc-3.4 (?) (Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgadmin3 not compliant with gcc-3.4 (?)
|
Список | 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
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: