OK, thanks.
Jason
On 01/23/2014 04:50 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 01/23/2014 10:30 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
To be clear if we use %qT with nested_name_specifier we get:
58980.C:5:8: error: ‘typename A< >::B’ has not
been declared
which frankly seems suboptimal to me, both vs the non-template case and
the use o
On 01/23/2014 10:30 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
To be clear if we use %qT with nested_name_specifier we get:
58980.C:5:8: error: ‘typename A< >::B’ has not
been declared
which frankly seems suboptimal to me, both vs the non-template case and
the use of typename.
If you want to break apart the t
On 01/23/2014 04:01 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 01/23/2014 03:05 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 01/22/2014 04:29 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 01/22/2014 10:10 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Yep, that's along the lines I was thinking of. But again, prev_scope
is irrelevant here, so the new code shou
Hi,
On 01/23/2014 03:05 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 01/22/2014 04:29 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 01/22/2014 10:10 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Yep, that's along the lines I was thinking of. But again, prev_scope
is irrelevant here, so the new code shouldn't mention it at all.
Well, in practice I
On 01/22/2014 04:29 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 01/22/2014 10:10 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Yep, that's along the lines I was thinking of. But again, prev_scope
is irrelevant here, so the new code shouldn't mention it at all.
Well, in practice I have to mention it in the error_at itself.
Why?
On 01/22/2014 10:10 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Yep, that's along the lines I was thinking of. But again, prev_scope is
irrelevant here, so the new code shouldn't mention it at all.
Well, in practice I have to mention it in the error_at itself. Otherwise
I'm finishing testing the below.
Paolo.
ct: Re: [C++ Patch] PR 58980
Hi,
On 01/22/2014 06:13 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 01/21/2014 09:55 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> I think I would prefer to change the "child" assert to be
>> MAYBE_CLASS_TYPE_P rather than CLASS_TYPE_P.
> On second thought, no, I t
Hi,
On 01/22/2014 06:13 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 01/21/2014 09:55 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I think I would prefer to change the "child" assert to be
MAYBE_CLASS_TYPE_P rather than CLASS_TYPE_P.
On second thought, no, I think we do want to specifically handle
TYPENAME_TYPE. But I think we w
On 01/21/2014 09:55 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I think I would prefer to change the "child" assert to be
MAYBE_CLASS_TYPE_P rather than CLASS_TYPE_P.
On second thought, no, I think we do want to specifically handle
TYPENAME_TYPE. But I think we want a different error message; getting a
TYPENAM
On 01/21/2014 04:16 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ if (TREE_CODE (child) == TYPENAME_TYPE)
+return false;
+
Maybe we want instead to do
if (WILDCARD_TYPE_P (child))
return false;
(which also passes testing, of course).
Thanks,
Paolo.
Hi,
On 01/21/2014 03:55 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I think I would prefer to change the "child" assert to be
MAYBE_CLASS_TYPE_P rather than CLASS_TYPE_P.
.. Ok, but then it seems to me that we have to explicitly handle the
TYPENAME_TYPE case, otherwise we end up simply accepting the testcase
(ev
I think I would prefer to change the "child" assert to be
MAYBE_CLASS_TYPE_P rather than CLASS_TYPE_P.
Jason
Hi,
in this relatively serious ICE on invalid regression (we don't emit any
sensible diagnostic before ICE-ing) the problem is that is_ancestor
simply asserts that the second argument can be only a NAMESPACE_DECL or
a CLASS_TYPE_P, whereas in the erroneous input at issue it's a
TYPENAME_TYPE.
14 matches
Mail list logo
