On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 28/02/2018 20:20, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, the test seems wrong; the diagnostic talks about specializing the
>> arguments, but the actual test is checking whether the enclosing scope
>> is fully specialized. It looks like you'll give the same error for
>>
>> template <class T>
>> struct A {
>> template <class U>
>> static const U u;
>> };
>>
>> template <class T>
>> template <class U>
>> const U* A<T>::u<U*> = nullptr;
>>
>> which does specialize the argument; since we accept
>>
>> template <class T>
>> struct A {
>> template <class U>
>> struct B;
>> };
>>
>> template <class T>
>> template <class U>
>> struct A<T>::B<U*> { };
>>
>> we ought to accept the above as well.
>>
>> So, we could reject the testcase with this error, but we would need to
>> test for it using the same check as in process_partial_specialization.
>
> I see. Doing that seems relatively easy - I have a draft which appears to
> work - but then we have immediately to change the gcc_assert at the
> beginning of determine_specialization to let such specializations through
> (of course it still uses the wrong test!!). I'm not sure about the best way
> to do that... But that seems also doable.
That test is correct for functions, I think we just want to restrict
that block to functions.
> The next problem is
> duplicate_decls which apparently misses a bit of code to understand that the
> new declaration does not conflict with the old one near line #1650... So,
> frankly, I think that even with your great guidance I would need a few
> iterations to get right the whole package and we are so damn close to the
> release. What do you think? Do you want to take this over, or maybe you see
> us restricting a bit what we'll have working in this area for 8.1.0?
Yeah, I'll take it.
Jason
