2011/9/23 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>:
> On 09/22/2011 05:11 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>
>> 2011/9/22 Jason Merrill<ja...@redhat.com>:
>
>>> 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.
>
> It works for that testcase, but we need to handle functions in
> lookup_fnfields_1 since it's also called from other places.
Aha, hence, I'll tackle this issue in another patch, one PR at a time !
>>> 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;
>> }
>> }
>
> I was thinking more like
>
> tree decl = field;
> if (TREE_CODE (decl) == USING_DECL)
> {
> decl = strip_using_decl (decl);
> if (is_overloaded_fn (decl)) continue;
> }
> if (DECL_NAME (decl) == name
> ...
I should have got it... Thank you anyway.
I will update the patch accordingly at the begining of the next week, I hope.
--
Fabien
