2011/9/22 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>:
> On 09/22/2011 04:22 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>
>> I would have thought that we want to do something with OVERLOAD here,
>> in order to get rid of PR c++/30195 and c++/25994 (removing a wrong
>> diagnostic additionaly)... But those PRs are already fixed by this
>> patch without doing anything with OVERLOAD. Consequently, I don't
>> really know why it would be needed, but I can certainly do it if you
>> prefer. Have you got an example in mind where it would be needed ?
>
> I don't, it just seemed strange to handle functions differently from other
> decls here. But when I look more closely I see that we're in
> lookup_field_1, which isn't interested in functions, so I guess we do want
> to ignore function using-declarations here.
That's strange because if we do return FUNCTION_DECL, PR c++/30195 seems solved.
> But check for is_overloaded_fn rather than just OVERLOAD. Also, it looks
> like the new code doesn't respect want_type.
Er, I'm a bit lost, do you mean something like that ?
if (TREE_CODE (field) == USING_DECL)
{
tree target_field = strip_using_decl (field);
if (target_field != field)
{
if (DECL_P (target_field) && DECL_NAME (target_field) == name
|| (is_overloaded_fn (target_field)
&& DECL_NAME (get_first_fn (target_field)) == name))
{
if (!want_type
|| TREE_CODE (target_field) == TYPE_DECL)
return target_field;
}
continue;
}
}
Thanks,
--
Fabien
