On Jan 30, 2019, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
> On 30/01/19 17:25, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> +static inline bool
>> +instantiates_primary_template_p (tree node)
> I'm rather surprised by the inline:
It's (so far) a single use function, so it will likely be inlined even
without it. But yeah, I
Hi,
On 30/01/19 17:25, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
+static inline bool
+instantiates_primary_template_p (tree node)
I'm rather surprised by the inline: as a general rule, we want functions
this size all inline? I would say that in the C++ library we don't,
sure, not very big but already too big.
On 1/30/19 11:25 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jan 30, 2019, Jason Merrill wrote:
Hmm, I wouldn't expect that from a function named
"instantiates_primary_template_p".
Hmm, indeed.
Perhaps another function that calls instantiates_primary_template_p
and then checks for dependent innermost
On Jan 30, 2019, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Hmm, I wouldn't expect that from a function named
> "instantiates_primary_template_p".
Hmm, indeed.
> Perhaps another function that calls instantiates_primary_template_p
> and then checks for dependent innermost template args?
Does that come up as
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:37 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2019, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> >> + ??? How do we
> >> + tell apart a partial from a full explicit specialization in a
> >> + non-template context? */
>
> > We don't need to tell them apart here, the caller checks
On Jan 29, 2019, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> The single caller does, indeed, but the function does not make that a
> requirement, so others might call it and fail to check it. Should that
> test be moved here too?
Like this... Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu. Ok to install?
[PR87770] test
On Jan 27, 2019, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> +tinfo = DECL_TEMPLATE_INFO (node);
> Maybe use get_template_info?
Neat! But then, if we can assume node is a decl, we might as well go
straight for DECL_TEMPLATE_INFO. I'd rather not make that assumption,
though, and allow this new function to be
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 9:18 PM Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2019, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > The latter; you can't have a partial specialization in a function.
>
> *nod* (though not entirely reflected in the patch below, I see)
> >> Any suggestion of a good name for the inline function
On Jan 24, 2019, Jason Merrill wrote:
> The latter; you can't have a partial specialization in a function.
*nod* (though not entirely reflected in the patch below, I see)
>> Any suggestion of a good name for the inline function (or would you
>> prefer it to be a macro?) that tests whether a
On 1/23/19 10:53 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jan 21, 2019, Jason Merrill wrote:
"does this have its own template arguments, not just the ones from its
enclosing class?"
Perhaps compare the number of levels of template arguments of the
function to that of its enclosing context?
Is this
On Jan 21, 2019, Jason Merrill wrote:
> "does this have its own template arguments, not just the ones from its
> enclosing class?"
> Perhaps compare the number of levels of template arguments of the
> function to that of its enclosing context?
Is this the logic you had in mind? Or can we
On 1/18/19 1:55 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
When instantiating a partial specialization of a template member
function for a full specialization of a class template, we test
whether the context of variables local to the partial specialization,
i.e., the partial specialization itself, is dependent,
When instantiating a partial specialization of a template member
function for a full specialization of a class template, we test
whether the context of variables local to the partial specialization,
i.e., the partial specialization itself, is dependent, and this ICEs
in
13 matches
Mail list logo
