On 10/26/2011 10:35 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 10/26/2011 10:30 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
At a glance, it looks too early; it's valid to have
namespace-qualified names after ->.
namespace A
{
struct B
{
int i;
};
};
A::B* b;
int i = b->A::B::i;
I was also trying to construct such kind of example myself... but my
patch does not regress on the testcase you wrote down. I can tell you
exactly why, if you like..
We have that parser->scope is a RECORD_TYPE and postfix_expression is
an INDIRECT_REF.
In this case, for example (like PR50870):
namespace impl
{
struct inner
{
template <class T> T create();
};
}
template <class T, class U, __SIZE_TYPE__
= sizeof(impl::inner::create<T>() -> impl::inner::create<U>())>
struct foo;
we are also Ok, code is accepted, because name is a BASELINK and the new
check isn't even reached (postfix_expression would be an ARROW_EXPR, but
parser->scope again a RECORD_TYPE. More generally, in all the legal
tests I tried by hand (outside the testsuite), when we get there
parser->scope is always a RECORD_TYPE)
But if you feel more comfortable about performing the check elsewhere, I
can try that of course.
Paolo.
