Error Extra Qualification Gcc

here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have Meta Discuss the workings and policies of this site About Us Learn more about Stack Overflow the company Business

Error Extra Qualification On Member -fpermissive

Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads with us Stack Overflow Questions Jobs error extra qualification on member 'operator=' Documentation Tags Users Badges Ask Question x Dismiss Join the Stack Overflow Community Stack Overflow is a community of 4.7 million programmers, just

C++ Error Extra Qualification

like you, helping each other. Join them; it only takes a minute: Sign up error “extra qualification ‘student::’ on member ‘student’ [-fpermissive] ” up vote 8 down vote favorite I am getting an error extra qualification ‘student::’ extra qualification c++ on member ‘student’ [-fpermissive]. And also why name::name such syntax is used in constructor? #include #include using namespace std; class student { private: int id; char name[30]; public: /* void read() { cout<<"enter id"<>id; cout<<"enter name"<>name; }*/ void show() { cout<

here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have Meta

Extra Qualification On Member Xcode

Discuss the workings and policies of this site About Us Learn more cannot be overloaded about Stack Overflow the company Business Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads with us Stack

Extra Qualifications For Cv

Overflow Questions Jobs Documentation Tags Users Badges Ask Question x Dismiss Join the Stack Overflow Community Stack Overflow is a community of 4.7 million programmers, just like you, http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11692806/error-extra-qualification-student-on-member-student-fpermissive helping each other. Join them; it only takes a minute: Sign up “extra qualification” errors. How warranted by the Standard? up vote 4 down vote favorite This similar ill-fated question got comments and short answers, before it was closed, to the effect: Because that's how the language is defined. Here I am asking for the evidence within the http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18031285/extra-qualification-errors-how-warranted-by-the-standard C++ Standard that it is so defined. gcc 4.8.1 and clang 3.3 alike, with default diagnostic options or stricter, give errors for extra qualification or explicit qualification on code such as: struct x { int x::i; // Error: gcc/clang: "extra" }; int ::y; // Error: gcc: "explicit", clang: "extra" gcc has diagnosed such errors since v4.1. But popular compilers are not unanimous about these errors. MSVC++ 2012 (Nov CTP) gives an error at int ::y; but even with /Wall, gives no diagnostic at all int x::i; - the kind of case that the ill-fated questioner was raising - and that difference suggests deliberation by the MS compiler writers. How are these errors warranted by the Standard, if they are? References to the C++11 Standard will suffice. An answer might be "They follow from grammar". In that case, please try to show how they follow from the grammar and feel free to use the Standard's grammatical classifications. I have a copy and will re-read it to understand the explanation. c++

here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have Meta Discuss the workings and policies of this site About Us Learn more about Stack Overflow the company Business Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads with us http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9603813/ignore-g-compile-error-for-extra-qualification-for-backwards-compatibility Stack Overflow Questions Jobs Documentation Tags Users Badges Ask Question x Dismiss Join the Stack Overflow Community Stack Overflow is a community of 4.7 million programmers, just like you, helping each other. Join them; it only takes a minute: Sign up ignore http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2006-05/000699.html g++ compile error for extra qualification for backwards compatibility up vote 2 down vote favorite I am trying to port a project in a new Linux system with newer g++ version. While compiling I am getting the following: error: extra qualification 'Customer::' extra qualification on member 'getCustomer' Inside a class definition, I am prefixing getCustomer() with Customer::. If I remove the Customer:: my code works, however the code has a lot of entries prefixed with class names and scope operator. Is there a way, eg a compiler directive, that helps eliminating this error? From my shell gcc version 4.4.2 20091027 (Red Hat 4.4.2-7) (GCC) c++ linux compilation g++ share|improve this question edited Mar 7 '12 at 15:10 asked Mar 7 '12 at 14:59 cateof 1,171103889 2 This is error extra qualification an error, not a warning, so there must be something actually wrong with your code (which we cannot check btw). No flag can change that fact. –bitmask Mar 7 '12 at 15:04 1 I don't understand the down vote and close request. This is part of production code on a - not that old - G++ system. Are we discussing programming issues here? –cateof Mar 7 '12 at 15:07 @bitmask, this was NOT an error in earlier versions and I asked if there is backwards compatibility in the compiler –cateof Mar 7 '12 at 15:08 I didn't down- or close-vote, but I assume somebody did because of the relative vagueness of the question that makes it hard to reproduce your problem. –bitmask Mar 7 '12 at 15:12 @bitmask, my first comment was not for you. –cateof Mar 7 '12 at 15:14 add a comment| 2 Answers 2 active oldest votes up vote 1 down vote accepted Inside a class definition, I am prefixing getCustomer() with Customer::. I'm assuming you mean: class Customer { Customer *Customer::getCustomer() { ... } }; Don't. There's no need since you're already in the class definition, and I don't think the C++ standard even allows this (I'm surprised older G++ did?). It seems there's no -std flag (in GCC 4.4.5) that permits this. share|improve this answer answered Mar 7 '12 at 15:05 Fred Foo 228k34429605 Yes your code is close to our code. Sorry for not posting this at the

than a day had elapsed since the release of ETSET 3.2 before it was torpedoed by a fanatical “purity of essence” enhancement foisted onto software developers worldwide by the C++ cabal at the GCC project. In every version of GCC from the get-go through 4.0, code like the following: class struggle { void struggle::propaganda(void) { } }; compiled without so much as a warning, even in persnickety “-Wall” mode. But that was then, and this is now, and while the nugatory class qualification on "struggle::propaganda" is redundant since it's an in-line declaration within the class, it would seem to be just an example of specifying something you aren't required to in the interest of documentation—for example, when looking at a listing of a very long class declaration it reminds you of the name of the enclosing class. If you enter a search for: gcc "error: extra qualification" into your favourite search engine, you'll find hundreds (more than 650, from the results I got) of messages documenting Open Source software projects which have been blown away by this “enhancement” of GCC—for what good? Some suggest that this has something to with namespaces in C++: perhaps some obscure incompatibility between the use of qualifiers for class names and namespaces requires blowing away decades of carefully-maintained code. But, should that be the case, it is simply more evidence that C++ has become a legacy language, like COBOL, in which we are obliged to maintain existing code and link to libraries, but which has become demonstrably unsuitable for new software development. Now, when this particular torpedo strikes your vessel beneath the waterline minutes before (or, worse, after) a delivery milestone, it's easy to remedy: simply remove the class qualifier from the inline function declaration: wr