On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Fariborz Jahanian<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Fariborz Jahanian<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >> We have to build the node because otherwise, there isn't anywhere in >> the AST for the initializers to live. In the dependent case, yes, we > > Of course we need to build the initializer. Focus of the question is when > we have dependent type initializers. >> >> could skip all analysis; if we did that, though, we would miss a class >> of errors which could be detected earlier, specifically the case where >> a member that requires an initializer doesn't have one. > > We don't need to skip the analysis. We just don't build > BaseOrMemberInitializers if > there is even one dependent case.
The issue was that the initializer wasn't ever getting seen by the instantiation code. I'm really not following what you're saying; I'll try to look at the code in more detail later. -Eli _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
