Bug#225663: conflict with enum and function as well.
Below are messages. enum contains remove within a named enum and remove
is a function. In c++ there is no conflict.
Making: ../../unxlngi4.pro/slo/basicparser.obj
ccache g++-3.3 -fmessage-length=0 -c -I. -I. -I../inc -I../../source/inc
-I../../inc -I../../unx/inc -I../../unxlngi4.pro/inc -I.
-I/data/office/solver/680/unxlngi4.pro/inc/stl
-I/data/office/solver/680/unxlngi4.pro/inc/external
-I/data/office/solver/680/unxlngi4.pro/inc -I/data/office/solenv/unxlngi4/inc
-I/data/office/solenv/inc -I/data/office/res
-I/data/office/solver/680/unxlngi4.pro/inc/stl -I/data/office/solenv/inc/Xp31
-I/opt/jdk/include -I/opt/jdk/include/linux
-I/opt/jdk/include/native_threads/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -I.
-I../../res -I. -g -g -O -pipe -mcpu=pentiumpro -fpermissive -fno-rtti
-include preinclude.h -fexceptions -fno-enforce-eh-specs -fpic -DLINUX -DUNX
-DVCL -DGCC -DC300 -DINTEL -DGXX_INCLUDE_PATH=/usr/include/c++/3.3 -DCVER=C300
-D_USE_NAMESPACE -DGLIBC=2 -DX86 -D_PTHREADS -D_REENTRANT -DNEW_SOLAR
-D_USE_NAMESPACE=1 -DSTLPORT_VERSION=400 -D__DMAKE -DUNIX -DCPPU_ENV=gcc3
-DSUPD=680 -DBUILD=8727 -DDEBUG -DPRODUCT -DNDEBUG -DPRODUCT_FULL
-DOSL_DEBUG_LEVEL=2 -DEXCEPTIONS_ON -DCUI -DSOLAR_JAVA -DSRC680 -DSHAREDLIB
-D_DLL_ -DMULTITHREAD -o ../../unxlngi4.pro/slo/basicparser.o
/data/office/configmgr/source/xml/basicparser.cxx
In file included from /data/office/configmgr/source/xml/elementparser.hxx:66,
from /data/office/configmgr/source/xml/basicparser.hxx:66,
from /data/office/configmgr/source/xml/basicparser.cxx:62:
/data/office/configmgr/source/xml/elementinfo.hxx:119: error: `remove'
redeclared as different kind of symbol
/usr/include/stdio.h:152: error: previous declaration of `int remove(const char*)'
dmake: Error code 1, while making '../../unxlngi4.pro/slo/basicparser.obj'
------- Additional comments from waratah Wed Dec 31 15:42:08 -0800 2003
-------
Code is...
namespace Operation
{
enum Enum
{
none,
modify,
clear,
replace,
remove,
unknown
};
}
--
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer
Reply to: