On 08/23/2012 10:00 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
Thanks for tackling this "using" bug !
You are welcome!
Incidentally, as you seem to be used to visiting old C++ bugs, feel
free to ping/assign me on bugs that concern using-declarations --
obviously if you do not plan to fix it yourself (which is a
Hi Paolo,
2012/8/23 Jason Merrill :
[...]
>> The below passes testing, anyway.
>
>
> OK.
>
> Jason
Thanks for tackling this "using" bug !
Incidentally, as you seem to be used to visiting old C++ bugs, feel
free to ping/assign me on bugs that concern using-declarations --
obviously if you do not p
On 08/22/2012 12:01 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
At this point, let me know, I could either add to the testcase a
templated variant like the above (see attached), or rework the code to
explicitly check the underlying type (I would add locals hosting the
TREE_TYPEs to shorten a bit things, etc).
The
Hi again,
On 08/22/2012 05:13 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/22/2012 10:55 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
. thus, in short, what is happening is that, for this testcase:
class B
{
protected:
enum E { E1, E2, E3 };
};
class D : private B
{
public:
using B::E;
private:
enum E { };
};
we pa
Hi again,
On 08/22/2012 05:13 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/22/2012 10:55 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
. thus, in short, what is happening is that, for this testcase:
class B
{
protected:
enum E { E1, E2, E3 };
};
class D : private B
{
public:
using B::E;
private:
enum E { };
};
we pa
On 08/22/2012 10:55 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
. thus, in short, what is happening is that, for this testcase:
class B
{
protected:
enum E { E1, E2, E3 };
};
class D : private B
{
public:
using B::E;
private:
enum E { };
};
we parse the new declaration enum E { }; and we reach
suppleme
. thus, in short, what is happening is that, for this testcase:
class B
{
protected:
enum E { E1, E2, E3 };
};
class D : private B
{
public:
using B::E;
private:
enum E { };
};
we parse the new declaration enum E { }; and we reach
supplement_binding_1 before setting the underlying type
Hi.
On 08/22/2012 04:14 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 08/22/2012 04:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/22/2012 08:43 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
yesterday I had a look to this old PR and noticed that we are almost
doing already the right thing for the original testcase: we are for
classes, but
Hi,
On 08/22/2012 04:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/22/2012 08:43 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
yesterday I had a look to this old PR and noticed that we are almost
doing already the right thing for the original testcase: we are for
classes, but we ICE (something recent) for enums. The latter iss
On 08/22/2012 08:43 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
yesterday I had a look to this old PR and noticed that we are almost
doing already the right thing for the original testcase: we are for
classes, but we ICE (something recent) for enums. The latter issue seems
easy to fix: handle specially enums at the
Hi,
yesterday I had a look to this old PR and noticed that we are almost
doing already the right thing for the original testcase: we are for
classes, but we ICE (something recent) for enums. The latter issue seems
easy to fix: handle specially enums at the beginning of
supplement_binding_1 on
11 matches
Mail list logo
