On 08/08/2012 02:47 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
AFAICS, the most uncertain case is the conditional operator test,
otherwise we could split the PR.
Turned out to be really trivial: a missing check for error_mark_node in
build_conditional_expr_1.
I'll send in a separate message a complete regtested
On 08/08/2012 02:47 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 08/08/2012 01:57 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
this also triggers the static_assert. Really, in
'decltype(B{declval()})' almost *everything* is Ok between the
curly brackets. Maybe we should have a separate PR for this.
And I think this issue is addres
On 08/08/2012 01:57 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
this also triggers the static_assert. Really, in
'decltype(B{declval()})' almost *everything* is Ok between the
curly brackets. Maybe we should have a separate PR for this.
And I think this issue is addressed by the ongoing work on instantiation
depe
.. I'm coming to the conclusion that the tests which are not fixed by a
patch along the lines of my draft don't have much to do with SFINAE vs
inaccessible bases per se (with the possible exception of the
conditional operator case). Consider:
struct A
{};
struct B
{};
template
T &&declval();
Hi,
this is an update on C++/54191, where in a number of cases, having to do
with inaccessible bases, we don't handle correctly access control under
SFINAE.
The attached draft patch p fixes a number of tests (and passes
regression testing), where we are currently emitting inaccessible base
