OK, thanks.
Jason
On 06/06/2012 05:45 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
The warning belongs to joust, called by tourney, called by
build_user_type_conversion_1, called by implicit_conversion.
Hmm. We really ought not to issue that warning until we know that we've
committed to that conversion. But I guess that doesn't
Hi again,
some additional details:
On 06/06/2012 11:20 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 06/06/2012 03:57 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/05/2012 08:23 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
@@ -1695,6 +1695,8 @@ implicit_conversion (tree to, tree from, tree
expr
|LOOKUP_NO_TEMP_BIND|LOOKUP_NO_RVA
Hi,
On 06/06/2012 03:57 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/05/2012 08:23 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
@@ -1695,6 +1695,8 @@ implicit_conversion (tree to, tree from, tree expr
|LOOKUP_NO_TEMP_BIND|LOOKUP_NO_RVAL_BIND|LOOKUP_PREFER_RVALUE
|LOOKUP_NO_NARROWING|LOOKUP_PROTECT);
+ comp
On 06/05/2012 08:23 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
@@ -1695,6 +1695,8 @@ implicit_conversion (tree to, tree from, tree expr
|LOOKUP_NO_TEMP_BIND|LOOKUP_NO_RVAL_BIND|LOOKUP_PREFER_RVALUE
|LOOKUP_NO_NARROWING|LOOKUP_PROTECT);
+ complain&= ~tf_error;
I don't think we want warni
Hi,
> We could, but I think it's fine to have it as an alias for LOOKUP_PROTECT;
> the LOOKUP_NORMAL name implies that we're doing a normal name lookup, whereas
> LOOKUP_PROTECT is what that implies.
Believe it or not, yesterday for a few minutes I had it exactly as an alias.
Ok, I'll do that.
On 06/05/2012 11:29 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
To be sure: NORMAL used to be just PROTECT | COMPLAIN, thus it's just about
names, right?
Yes.
You mean, we do away with the NORMAL name, you mean?
We could, but I think it's fine to have it as an alias for
LOOKUP_PROTECT; the LOOKUP_NORMAL nam
Hi,
Il giorno 05/giu/2012, alle ore 16:16, Jason Merrill ha
scritto:
> On 06/05/2012 07:00 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>(construct_virtual_base): Adjust LOOKUP_COMPLAIN -> LOOKUP_NORMAL.
>
> This and the similar changes elsewhere seem dangerous; they're adding adding
> LOOKUP_PROTECT that
On 06/05/2012 07:00 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
(construct_virtual_base): Adjust LOOKUP_COMPLAIN -> LOOKUP_NORMAL.
This and the similar changes elsewhere seem dangerous; they're adding
adding LOOKUP_PROTECT that wasn't there before. Instead, let's replace
LOOKUP_COMPLAIN with 0 or some
On 06/04/2012 08:22 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
In fact, I think setting complain to tf_warning may work better.
Sounds plausible.
Jason
On 06/05/2012 01:45 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 06/05/2012 01:23 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/04/2012 06:55 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
If, more generally, you mean we should remove it completely, I'm afraid
some cases are rather nasty. For example, I think that whenever we go
through implicit_c
On 06/05/2012 01:23 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/04/2012 06:55 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
If, more generally, you mean we should remove it completely, I'm afraid
some cases are rather nasty. For example, I think that whenever we go
through implicit_conversion, thus its flags &=, the following fu
On 06/04/2012 06:55 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
If, more generally, you mean we should remove it completely, I'm afraid
some cases are rather nasty. For example, I think that whenever we go
through implicit_conversion, thus its flags &=, the following function
calls can easily have at the same time
On 06/04/2012 10:15 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
@@ -5413,7 +5413,7 @@ build_op_delete_call (enum tree_code code, tree ad
fns = lookup_name_nonclass (fnname);
/* Strip const and volatile from addr. */
- addr = cp_convert (ptr_type_node, addr);
+ addr = cp_convert (ptr_type_node, addr, t
Hi,
in this "error reporting routines re-entered" ICE we try to emit a
warning from ocp_convert while we are already producing an error message
(we get to ocp_convert via the usual tsubst (tf_none) called by
dump_template_bindings). I considered whether we could avoid the
specific problem by
15 matches
Mail list logo
