OK.
Jason
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
>
> G> On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> On 12/21/2012 07:35 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
else if (TREE_TYPE (t)
&& INTEGRAL_OR_ENUMERATION_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t))
Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
G> On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 12/21/2012 07:35 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>>>
>>> else if (TREE_TYPE (t)
>>>&& INTEGRAL_OR_ENUMERATION_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t))
>>> - && !TREE_CONSTANT (t))
>>> + && !TREE_CO
Jason Merrill writes:
> On 12/21/2012 07:35 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>> else if (TREE_TYPE (t)
>> && INTEGRAL_OR_ENUMERATION_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t))
>> - && !TREE_CONSTANT (t))
>> + && !TREE_CONSTANT (t)
>> + /* Class template and alias template arguments should be O
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/21/2012 07:35 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>>
>> else if (TREE_TYPE (t)
>>&& INTEGRAL_OR_ENUMERATION_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t))
>> - && !TREE_CONSTANT (t))
>> + && !TREE_CONSTANT (t)
>> + /* Class te
On 12/21/2012 07:35 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
else if (TREE_TYPE (t)
&& INTEGRAL_OR_ENUMERATION_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t))
- && !TREE_CONSTANT (t))
+ && !TREE_CONSTANT (t)
+ /* Class template and alias template arguments should be OK. */
+ && !DECL_
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
>
>> Thank you very much for the explanation; your previous message
>> makes sense to me now.
>
> You are welcome.
>
>> The question I have is why are we using TREE_TYPE of a TEMPLATE_DECL
>> to represent the curren
Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
> Thank you very much for the explanation; your previous message
> makes sense to me now.
You are welcome.
> The question I have is why are we using TREE_TYPE of a TEMPLATE_DECL
> to represent the current instantiation of a template alias?
My understanding is that in t
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
>
>> The example is valid, but I am not sure I understand your
>> explanation...
>
> Ah, sorry. I realize just now that I haven't mentioned the initial
> erratic behaviour. Maybe that could have made my message
Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
> The example is valid, but I am not sure I understand your
> explanation...
Ah, sorry. I realize just now that I haven't mentioned the initial
erratic behaviour. Maybe that could have made my message easier to
understand.
So consider the test case of the message:
The example is valid, but I am not sure I understand your explanation...
-- Gaby
11 matches
Mail list logo