rfg@MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette) (03/11/89)
The following code gets an error using G++ 1.34.0/Sun3. It shouldn't.
Cut here
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/*
Description - The c++ "manual" (p. 270) says that "... a declaration may add
default arguments not given in previous declarations" This
privledge should probably extend to method declarations and
function declarations alike. The following code checks that
a re-declaration of a method may add some new defaults.
*/
struct class1 {
void method1 (int arg1, int arg2);
void method1 (int arg1, int arg2 = 35);
};
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
g++ -S x06.cc
x06.cc:11: `void class1::method1 (int, int (= 35 ))' is already defined in aggregate scope
// Ron Guilmette - MCC - Experimental (parallel) Systems Kit Project
// 3500 West Balcones Center Drive, Austin, TX 78759 - (512)338-3740
// ARPA: rfg@mcc.com
// UUCP: {rutgers,uunet,gatech,ames,pyramid}!cs.utexas.edu!pp!rfgschmidt@crimee.ics.uci.edu (Doug Schmidt) (03/11/89)
In article <8903110137.AA08978@riunite.aca.mcc.com> rfg@MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes: ++ The following code gets an error using G++ 1.34.0/Sun3. It shouldn't. ++ ++ Cut here ++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ++ /* ++ Description - The c++ "manual" (p. 270) says that "... a declaration may add ++ default arguments not given in previous declarations" This ++ privledge should probably extend to method declarations and ++ function declarations alike. The following code checks that ++ a re-declaration of a method may add some new defaults. ++ */ ++ ++ struct class1 { ++ void method1 (int arg1, int arg2); ++ void method1 (int arg1, int arg2 = 35); ++ }; ++ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ++ g++ -S x06.cc ++ x06.cc:11: `void class1::method1 (int, int (= 35 ))' is already defined in aggregate scope I'm not sure if G++ is wrong here. Here's what cfront 1.2.1 sez: ---------------------------------------- CC bug.c: "bug.c", line 12: error: two declarations of class1::method1() sorry, cannot recover from previous error 1 error ---------------------------------------- This error certainly makes intuitive sense, although I can see how one might come to the other interpretation from the ``manual.'' I guess we'll just have to wait for 2.0 and the new C++ reference... Doug -- schmidt@ics.uci.edu (ARPA) | Per me si va nella citta' dolente. office: (714) 856-4043 | Per me si va nell'eterno dolore. | Per me si va tra la perduta gente. | Lasciate ogni speranza o voi ch'entrate.
rfg@MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette) (03/12/89)
Doug, Allow me to post a follow-up to your follow-up on one of my recent G++ bug reports. Your follow-up was as follows: |In article <8903110137.AA08978@riunite.aca.mcc.com> rfg@MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes: |++ The following code gets an error using G++ 1.34.0/Sun3. It shouldn't. |++ |++ Cut here |++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |++ /* |++ Description - The c++ "manual" (p. 270) says that "... a declaration may add |++ default arguments not given in previous declarations" This |++ privledge should probably extend to method declarations and |++ function declarations alike. The following code checks that |++ a re-declaration of a method may add some new defaults. |++ */ |++ |++ struct class1 { |++ void method1 (int arg1, int arg2); |++ void method1 (int arg1, int arg2 = 35); |++ }; |++ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |++ g++ -S x06.cc |++ x06.cc:11: `void class1::method1 (int, int (= 35 ))' is already defined in aggregate scope | |I'm not sure if G++ is wrong here. Here's what cfront 1.2.1 sez: | |---------------------------------------- |CC bug.c: |"bug.c", line 12: error: two declarations of class1::method1() |sorry, cannot recover from previous error |1 error |---------------------------------------- | |This error certainly makes intuitive sense, although I can see how one |might come to the other interpretation from the ``manual.'' I guess |we'll just have to wait for 2.0 and the new C++ reference... I believe that the "manual" (if you could call it that!) and my interpretation are both correct, and that this *is* a bug. I think that the idea was to allow you to have one declaration of a method or function then some calls to that method/function, then another declaration of the method/function with more defaults, then some more calls which may now make use of the added defaults. This is definitely allowed for non-member functions (and is supported by G++ 1.34.0 for such functions). I think that in this case, the same semantics should apply to both member and non-member functions. // Ron Guilmette - MCC - Experimental (parallel) Systems Kit Project // 3500 West Balcones Center Drive, Austin, TX 78759 - (512)338-3740 // ARPA: rfg@mcc.com // UUCP: {rutgers,uunet,gatech,ames,pyramid}!cs.utexas.edu!pp!rfg