OK.
Jason
2011/12/5 Jason Merrill :
[...]
> Since finish_id_expression often returns something that isn't a decl at all,
> I think stripping the using here makes sense.
Good, here is an updated patch, (re)tested x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
OK to commit ?
--
Fabien
51319.patch
Description: Binary data
On 12/05/2011 02:00 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
2011/12/5 Jason Merrill:
Is there a reason not to just do
decl = strip_using_decl (decl);
early in finish_id_expression?
Not really, I've already tried it and it works. I wasn't sure it was
correct not to return a USING_DECL in aIl cases -- they
2011/12/5 Jason Merrill :
> Is there a reason not to just do
>
> decl = strip_using_decl (decl);
>
> early in finish_id_expression?
Not really, I've already tried it and it works. I wasn't sure it was
correct not to return a USING_DECL in aIl cases -- they are numerous
in this huge function. If y
Is there a reason not to just do
decl = strip_using_decl (decl);
early in finish_id_expression?
Jason
Hi,
The problem here seems to be that we don't perform the enumeration
constant resolving in finish_id_expression when the DECL is a
USING_DECL. Consequently, I think we shall strip the USING_DECL before
checking for a CONST_DECL.
Tested x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu without regressions. OK to commit
