On 09.08.2013 03:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/08/2013 06:28 PM, Adam Butcher wrote:
So all seems to be okay with both versions. Any ideas why?
Hmm, it sounds like processing_template_decl is being set after all,
even without your change.
Yup. Although the lambda template code I originally
On 08/08/2013 06:28 PM, Adam Butcher wrote:
So all seems to be okay with both versions. Any ideas why?
Hmm, it sounds like processing_template_decl is being set after all,
even without your change.
Jason
On 07.08.2013 20:56, Adam Butcher wrote:
On 07.08.2013 16:59, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/07/2013 03:52 AM, Adam Butcher wrote:
But a cleaner way might be to extend the "processing
template declaration" state from lambda declarator all the way to
the end of the
lambda body. This would match wi
On 07.08.2013 16:59, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/07/2013 03:52 AM, Adam Butcher wrote:
But a cleaner way might be to extend the "processing
template declaration" state from lambda declarator all the way to
the end of the
lambda body. This would match with the scenario that occurs with a
standa
On 08/07/2013 03:52 AM, Adam Butcher wrote:
But a cleaner way might be to extend the "processing
template declaration" state from lambda declarator all the way to the end of the
lambda body. This would match with the scenario that occurs with a standard
in-class member function template definiti
Hi Jason,
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 17:26:12 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 08/04/2013 07:45 PM, Adam Butcher wrote:
> > What should I do about the symtab nullptr issue?
> > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg00043.html) Should I
> > leave the workaround in my patch set as a standalone com
