http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17729
Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #26539|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #25 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-02 10:51:32
UTC ---
Created attachment 26550
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26550
fix that covers pr50308 as well.
The problem I perceive is that we have a set of tests for deprecation sprinkled
over the code. This means that each time we uncover a new pathway - e.g.
pr50308 there is (potentially) some amendment required.
What I can't see (because I don't know the c++ FE well enough) is whether there
is a single place that a [possibly more sophisticated] test could be made.
For example, since the deprecation state of items does not alter the outcome of
parsing, but only the presence of warning/error, perhaps when one logically
reaches the ";" that would be a place to check the preceding statement for
deprecated items?
Anyway, the attached patch deals with the fact that we can't check a function
ID for deprecation because it might be later overloaded - but also, that we
can't delegate all of the checking to the call processing - because function
ids might be used without a call.
