On 07/30/2014 03:00 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ /* Fail if parms are left and they don't have default values and
+ they aren't all deduced as empty packs, eg (c++/57397):
+
+ template
+ void foo(T1, Tn..., Tm...);
+
+ int main()
+ {
+ foo(1);
+ } */
Let's drop the
... I'm finishing testing the below.
Thanks!
Paolo.
//
Index: cp/pt.c
===
--- cp/pt.c (revision 213287)
+++ cp/pt.c (working copy)
@@ -5517,13 +5517,21 @@ unify_method_type_error (bool explain_p, tree arg
Hi,
On 07/30/2014 07:19 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/30/2014 11:09 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ /* Eg (c++/57397):
+
+ template
+ void foo(T1, Tn..., Tm...);
+
+ int main()
+ {
+foo(1, 2);
+ } */
I think we should accept this: T1 is int, Tn is {}, Tm is
On 07/30/2014 11:09 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ /* Eg (c++/57397):
+
+ template
+ void foo(T1, Tn..., Tm...);
+
+ int main()
+ {
+foo(1, 2);
+ } */
I think we should accept this: T1 is int, Tn is {}, Tm is {int}.
+ template
+ void foo(T1, Tn..., T
Hi again,
the below tries to also fix the second problem I presented in this
thread. Passes testing on x86_64-linux. How does it look?
Thanks,
Paolo.
///
Index: cp/pt.c
===
--- cp/pt.c (revision 213287)
+++ cp
Hi,
On 07/29/2014 06:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/29/2014 12:23 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 07/29/2014 06:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Why would we get here in the too few args case? Won't we only hit
this code if we had enough args for the non-pack parms?
Yeah, that is exactly for the c
On 07/29/2014 12:23 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 07/29/2014 06:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Why would we get here in the too few args case? Won't we only hit
this code if we had enough args for the non-pack parms?
Yeah, that is exactly for the cases I was mentioning at the end of the
my first me
Hi,
On 07/29/2014 06:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/29/2014 10:28 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+unify_arity (bool explain_p, int have, int wanted, bool lb_p = false)
I don't understand "lb_p".
lower_bound ;) The first name which came to my mind...
@@ -16598,6 +16608,8 @@ type_unification_r
On 07/29/2014 10:28 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+unify_arity (bool explain_p, int have, int wanted, bool lb_p = false)
I don't understand "lb_p".
@@ -16598,6 +16608,8 @@ type_unification_real (tree tparms,
tree argvec;
tree parmvec = make_tree_vec (1);
+ remaining_pack_p = tr
Hi,
in this diagnostic issue Jon noticed that for testcases like:
template
void foo(T1, Tn...);
int main()
{
foo();
}
we provide diagnostic saying "candidate expects 2 arguments, 0
provided", whereas of course we want to say something like "candidate
expects at least 1 argument, 0 provided
10 matches
Mail list logo
