On 3/23/22 10:29, Patrick Palka wrote:
I wonder if it'd be worthwhile to also test dependent_type_p (scope) here
here to avoid iterating over the lookup set when it can't possibly contain
a dependent using-decl.
Good thought:
From b1005f60c17d693e9fbc38a9481b3cd896d26785 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 12:22:20 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] c++: tweak PR105006 fix
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Checking dependent_type_p avoids needing to walk the overloads in cases
where it would not be possible to find a dependent using.
PR c++/105006
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* name-lookup.cc (lookup_using_decl): Check that scope is
a dependent type before looking for dependent using.
---
gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc
index ea947fabb7e..3c7b626350f 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc
@@ -5667,7 +5667,7 @@ lookup_using_decl (tree scope, name_lookup &lookup)
/* If the lookup in the base contains a dependent using, this
using is also dependent. */
- if (!dependent_p && lookup.value)
+ if (!dependent_p && lookup.value && dependent_type_p (scope))
{
tree val = lookup.value;
if (tree fns = maybe_get_fns (val))
--
2.27.0
