2012/6/7 Fabien Chêne fabien.ch...@gmail.com:
[...]
... committed as rev 188294.
I will backport it to 4.7 when it unfreezes.
... Eventually backported as rev 189021.
--
Fabien
2012/6/3 Fabien Chêne fabien.ch...@gmail.com:
2012/6/3 Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com:
On 05/24/2012 09:18 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
OK, thanks.
I notice you haven't checked the patch in yet, is there a problem?
Not at all, just lack of time, so many problems/holidays to tackle at
the
2012/6/3 Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Fabien Chêne fabien.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/6/3 Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com:
On 05/24/2012 09:18 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
OK, thanks.
I notice you haven't checked the patch in yet, is there a
2012/6/3 Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com:
On 05/24/2012 09:18 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
OK, thanks.
I notice you haven't checked the patch in yet, is there a problem?
Not at all, just lack of time, so many problems/holidays to tackle at
the moment... That is May month in France ;-)
I'll be
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Fabien Chêne fabien.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/6/3 Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com:
On 05/24/2012 09:18 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
OK, thanks.
I notice you haven't checked the patch in yet, is there a problem?
Not at all, just lack of time, so many
On 05/24/2012 09:18 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
OK, thanks.
I notice you haven't checked the patch in yet, is there a problem?
Jason
OK, thanks.
Jason
2012/5/7 Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com:
On 05/06/2012 04:06 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
+ if (late_enum_values)
+ VEC_safe_push (tree, gc, late_enum_values, decl);
I would think you could walk the TYPE_VALUES list directly, rather than copy
it into a temporary VEC.
Indeed, let's
On 05/06/2012 04:06 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
+ if (late_enum_values)
+ VEC_safe_push (tree, gc, late_enum_values, decl);
I would think you could walk the TYPE_VALUES list directly, rather than
copy it into a temporary VEC.
Jason
2012/2/29 Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com:
On 02/28/2012 05:06 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
I agree, this is not efficient but I didn't find a better place.
perhaps in cp_parser_enumerator_list, that would require adding an
additional parameter to keep track of all the enum DECLs. Is it what
you
On 02/28/2012 05:06 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
I agree, this is not efficient but I didn't find a better place.
perhaps in cp_parser_enumerator_list, that would require adding an
additional parameter to keep track of all the enum DECLs. Is it what
you have in mind ?
I was thinking of
Hi,
The problem in this PR is that the CLASSTYPE_SORTED_FIELDS is created
too early (in finish_struct_1) to handle those late unscoped enum
definitions.
Consequently, I propose to lately add those names in
CLASSTYPE_SORTED_FIELDS when they are encountered, in
build_enumerator.
Tested
Minor nit: the correct spelling is threshold, not threashold.
Thanks,
Paolo.
On 02/28/2012 03:36 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
* decl.c (build_enumerator): Call
insert_into_classtype_sorted_fields if an enumerator-definition
referring
to a class scope opaque enum has been encountered.
This will insert and sort the vector again for each enumerator; we
2012/2/28 Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com:
On 02/28/2012 03:36 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
* decl.c (build_enumerator): Call
insert_into_classtype_sorted_fields if an enumerator-definition
referring
to a class scope opaque enum has been encountered.
This will insert and
2012/2/28 Fabien Chêne fabien.ch...@gmail.com:
2012/2/28 Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com:
On 02/28/2012 03:36 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
[...]
Will unqualified lookup work
because we're in the enumeration scope, or do we need to make lookup in the
class work?
Unqualified lookup works because
16 matches
Mail list logo
