On 7/11/24 6:22 AM, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 05:43:59PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/9/24 9:44 AM, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 12:26:41PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
For a using-decl in the same scope as the original decl, won't this replace
it so o
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 05:43:59PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 7/9/24 9:44 AM, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 12:26:41PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > For a using-decl in the same scope as the original decl, won't this
> > > replace
> > > it so only the using-decl is v
On 7/9/24 9:44 AM, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 12:26:41PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
For a using-decl in the same scope as the original decl, won't this replace
it so only the using-decl is visible to lookup? I had expected to omit the
USING_DECL in that case.
Yup it will;
On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 12:26:41PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 7/6/24 10:06 PM, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
> > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for trunk?
> >
> > -- >8 --
> >
> > With modules, a non-function using-declaration is not completely
> > interchangable with the de
