Re: [C++ patch] PR 20420

[Jason Merrill]

On 08/22/2012 10:55 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
. thus, in short, what is happening is that, for this testcase:
class B
{
protected:
   enum E { E1, E2, E3 };
};

class D : private B
{
public:
   using B::E;

private:
   enum E { };
};

we parse the new declaration enum E { }; and we reach
supplement_binding_1 before setting the underlying type of the new
declaration. The old declaration is fine, would not ICE dependent_type_p.

So with your change would we still ICE if D were a template?  It seems 
like what we should be checking for is null underlying type.

Jason