[Bug c++/56222] Pointer to member in lambda should not require this to be captured

2013-03-17 Thread bruck.michael at googlemail dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56222



Michael Bruck bruck.michael at googlemail dot com changed:



   What|Removed |Added



 CC||bruck.michael at googlemail

   ||dot com



--- Comment #7 from Michael Bruck bruck.michael at googlemail dot com 
2013-03-17 21:12:24 UTC ---

This issue applies to 4.7.x too. Any chance to get this backported?


[Bug c++/56222] Pointer to member in lambda should not require this to be captured

2013-03-17 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56222



--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-18 
03:51:11 UTC ---

Now that 4.8.0 is about to be released, I'm reluctant to backport

non-regression C++11 fixes to 4.7.


[Bug c++/56222] Pointer to member in lambda should not require this to be captured

2013-03-08 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56222



--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-08 
16:03:57 UTC ---

Author: jason

Date: Fri Mar  8 16:03:48 2013

New Revision: 196549



URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=196549

Log:

PR c++/51494

PR c++/51884

PR c++/56222

* tree.c (maybe_dummy_object): Don't capture 'this'.

* semantics.c (maybe_resolve_dummy): New.

(finish_non_static_data_member): Use it.

(finish_qualified_id_expr): Don't test is_dummy_object.

* cp-tree.h: Declare maybe_resolve_dummy.

* call.c (build_new_method_call_1): Use it.



Added:

trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-this11.C

Modified:

trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog

trunk/gcc/cp/call.c

trunk/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h

trunk/gcc/cp/semantics.c

trunk/gcc/cp/tree.c


[Bug c++/56222] Pointer to member in lambda should not require this to be captured

2013-03-08 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56222



Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:



   What|Removed |Added



 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

 Resolution||FIXED

   Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0



--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-08 
16:09:29 UTC ---

Fixed for 4.8.


[Bug c++/56222] Pointer to member in lambda should not require this to be captured

2013-03-05 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56222



Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:



   What|Removed |Added



 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

 CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot   |jason at gcc dot gnu.org

   |gnu.org |



--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-03-05 
17:46:53 UTC ---

Related to 51494.


[Bug c++/56222] Pointer to member in lambda should not require this to be captured

2013-02-06 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56222



Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:



   What|Removed |Added



 CC||daniel.kruegler at

   ||googlemail dot com



--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2013-02-06 
11:32:40 UTC ---

I don't think this is legal, when y isn't static I mean (otherwise it would be

a dup of PR55828). Daniel, what do you think?


[Bug c++/56222] Pointer to member in lambda should not require this to be captured

2013-02-06 Thread daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56222

--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com 
2013-02-06 11:42:21 UTC ---
The code looks valid to me, I don't see any reason for capturing something
here. The expression Test::y should be valid in that scope and returns an
rvalue.


[Bug c++/56222] Pointer to member in lambda should not require this to be captured

2013-02-06 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56222



Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:



   What|Removed |Added



 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

   Last reconfirmed||2013-02-06

 Blocks||54367

 Ever Confirmed|0   |1



--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2013-02-06 
11:55:51 UTC ---

Ok, confirmed.