On 09/17/2011 09:44 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
I tried various things without success, and I ended up hacking
supplement_binding_1 to handle those ENUMERAL_TYPEs.
I am all ear for another solution ...
Your solution seems reasonable to me, but it needs a comment, along the
lines of
/* We allow pushing an enum multiple times in a class template in order
to handle late matching of underlying type on an opaque-enum-declaration
followed by an enum-specifier. */
And I guess limit it to dependent class scope. Incidentally, repeating
opaque-enum-declarations at class scope is invalid under 9.2/1:
--
A member shall not be declared twice in the member-specification, except
that a nested class or member class template can be declared and then
later defined, and except that an enumeration can be introduced with an
opaque-enum-declaration and later redeclared with an enum-specifier.
--
So
struct A
{
enum E: int;
enum E: int { e1 };
};
is OK, but
struct B
{
enum E: int;
enum E: int;
};
is not.
+static tree
+strip_using_decl (tree decl)
Needs a comment. Also, this function has a loop in it, but various
other places in the patch that look through USING_DECLs don't loop.
if (!DECL_DEPENDENT_P (field))
- continue;
+ {
+ tree using_decl = USING_DECL_DECLS (field);
+ if ((TREE_CODE (using_decl) == FIELD_DECL
+ || TREE_CODE (using_decl) == TYPE_DECL)
+ && DECL_NAME (using_decl) == name)
+ return using_decl;
+ continue;
+ }
This section needs a comment. Why do we look through USING_DECL for
these two kinds of member but not others?
