Home Original page

[gold][aarch64]Patch for Relaxation

Cary Coutant ccoutant@google.com
Fri Oct 17 23:29:00 GMT 2014 
> Sure, I guess so.  I'm not sure why typename is not needed in newer
> versions.  We do normally use typename with This::Status, and it is,
> after all, a type.

While I'd expect to need "typename Foo<size, big_endian>::Status
status = ...", because the compiler can't tell at that point whether
"Foo<size, big_endian>" is a type or not, I wouldn't expect it to need
"typename" where we use an intermediate typedef -- it should be able
to know that "This" is a type. I guess newer compilers are smart
enough to figure that out, and 4.2 wasn't.

-cary
More information about the Binutils mailing list