2012/3/12 Fabien Chêne <fabien.ch...@gmail.com>:
> Salut Dodji,
>
> 2012/3/12 Dodji Seketeli <do...@seketeli.org>:
> [...]
>>> Index: gcc/cp/decl.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- gcc/cp/decl.c (revision 184891)
>>> +++ gcc/cp/decl.c (working copy)
>>> @@ -8686,6 +8686,9 @@ grokdeclarator (const cp_declarator *dec
>>> type = NULL_TREE;
>>> type_was_error_mark_node = true;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> + type = strip_using_decl (type);
>>> +
>>
>> I am a little bit curious as to why this change is necessary. It seems
>> to me that the test case of your patch would pass even without this
>> change, wouldn't it?
>
> Yes, this testcase would pass, but an existing testcase wouldn't. I
> don't remeber which one, but I think it was related to using
> declarations that refer to a typedef.
>
> struct A { typedef int T; };
> stuct B : A { using B::T; };
More precisely, the testcase which was failing is g++.other/using5.C.
--
Fabien
