Re: Fwd: [C++ PATCH] PR 50958 and correct lookup of literal operators

2011-11-08 Thread Jason Merrill
On 11/08/2011 09:54 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: + if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (fn)) != LANG_TYPE) You don't need to check this, since OVL_CURRENT always gives a function. It seems like a lot of the complexity of lookup_literal_operator is for dealing with string literals, which is the case

Re: Fwd: [C++ PATCH] PR 50958 and correct lookup of literal operators

2011-11-08 Thread Jason Merrill
On 11/08/2011 09:54 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: My idea was that if C++ explicitly does not use the fixed point suffixes then, in C++11 mode, we should pass them along as user-defined literals. I don't think so. Those suffixes are reserved to the implementation anyway. I'll look at the patch

Fwd: [C++ PATCH] PR 50958 and correct lookup of literal operators

2011-11-08 Thread Ed Smith-Rowland
Ping... Sorry I forgot to cc you. I needed rebase anyhow after all the churn recently. Also, I started a food fight with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-11/msg00124.html. My idea was that if C++ explicitly does not use the fixed point suffixes then, in C++11 mode, we should pass them along as us

[C++ PATCH] PR 50958 and correct lookup of literal operators

2011-11-06 Thread Ed Smith-Rowland
The lookup rules require that all the operators for a given name be searched for one that has the exact same arguments implied by the literal. Also, an error concerning the length of raw operator strings was fixed. Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-raw-length.C ===