This is an unofficial snapshot of the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21 Core Issues List revision 115e. See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ for the official list.
2024-11-11
[Voted into WP at March, 2010 meeting.]
The recent changes to allow use of unnamed types as template arguments require some rethinking of how unnamed types are treated in general. At least, a class-scope unnamed type should have the same linkage as its containing class. For example:
// File "hdr.h" struct S { static enum { No, Yes } locked; }; template<class T> void f(T); // File "impl1.c" #include "hdr.h" template void f(decltype(S::locked)); // File "impl2.c" #include "hdr.h" template void f(decltype(S::locked));
The two explicit instantiation directives should refer to the same specialization.
Proposed resolution (February, 2010):
Change 6.6 [basic.link] paragraph 8 as follows:
Names not covered by these rules have no linkage. Moreover, except as noted, a name declared in a local scope (6.4.3 [basic.scope.block]) has no linkage. A type is said to have linkage if and only if:
it is a class or enumeration type that is named (or has a name for linkage purposes (9.2.4 [dcl.typedef])) and the name has linkage; or
it is an unnamed class or enumeration member of a class with linkage; or
...