On 08/22/2012 08:43 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
yesterday I had a look to this old PR and noticed that we are almost doing already the right thing for the original testcase: we are for classes, but we ICE (something recent) for enums. The latter issue seems easy to fix: handle specially enums at the beginning of supplement_binding_1 only when the comment says, that is in templates (otherwise we hit an assert in dependent_type_p).
Which assert? The underlying type ought to be set by the time we see a using, and it shouldn't be a TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARM.
Then, Comment #4 in the audit trail added a case of duplicate using declaration which we should also reject, involving VAR_DECLs at function scope (C++11 7.3.3/10). Seems also easy to fix, by checking the return value of validate_nonmember_using_decl at the beginning of do_local_using_decl and erroring out if it's null.
Let's put the error in validate_nonmember_using_decl with the other errors. Jason
