On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> + /* Likewise for the constexpr specifier, in case t is a specialization
> + and we are emitting an error about an incompatible redeclaration. */
It doesn't need to be in an error about a redeclaration; in general a
specialization can
OK.
Jason
Hi,
one more I missed. Tested x86_64-linux. Should be obvious too...
Thanks,
Paolo.
PS: I still have pending:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-06/msg01116.html
//
/cp
2016-06-17 Paolo Carlini
* decl.c (grokfndecl): Change pair of errors to error + infor
Hi,
On 15/06/2016 03:30, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
constexpr-specialization.C:7:26: error: redeclaration ‘constexpr int foo(T)
[with T = int]’ differs in ‘constexpr’
constexpr-specialization.C:6:16: error: from previous declaration ‘constexpr
i
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> constexpr-specialization.C:7:26: error: redeclaration ‘constexpr int foo(T)
> [with T = int]’ differs in ‘constexpr’
>
> constexpr-specialization.C:6:16: error: from previous declaration ‘constexpr
> int foo(T) [with T = int]’
>
> see? The pr
Hi,
today I noticed the below while I was putting together another batch of
minor diagnostic fixes. The error + error to error + inform change seems
rather straightforward to me and as usual adds clarity to the diagnostic
outputs (all the front-ends I have at hand either do something similar
