On 07/19/2012 03:35 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/12/2012 07:06 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I notice that your patch changes the behavior of C++98/03 mode as well,
which seems wrong to me; I think this is a big enough change that we
should limit it to C++11 mode.
...except that I can't figure
On 07/12/2012 07:06 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I notice that your patch changes the behavior of C++98/03 mode as well,
which seems wrong to me; I think this is a big enough change that we
should limit it to C++11 mode.
...except that I can't figure out what the semantics before this DR were
Hi,
On 07/16/2012 07:39 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/14/2012 05:54 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
The above change of yours appear to imply that, at variance with what I
had in my first draft, perform_typedefs_access_check shouldn't really
gain a tsubst_flags_t argument, because now it's called by
Hi,
On 07/17/2012 04:10 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/17/2012 08:45 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
-check_default_argument (tree decl, tree arg)
+check_default_argument (tree decl, tree arg, tsubst_flags_t complain)
Hmm, I don't think substitution of default arguments can cause
deduction
Hi again,
Hmm, now that I look at the code in instantiate_decl for
re-substituting to get additional errors, I guess I should have
factored that code out into a separate function and used it in the
access7 patch rather than add handling of FNDECL_RECHECK_ACCESS_P in
tsubst_decl.
I see. Could
On 07/17/2012 09:20 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
The below variant adds a fndecl_recheck_access_p and uses it in two
places, in tsubst_decl and instantiate_template_1. Did I understand
correctly?
I had something else in mind, but I'll take care of it.
Jason
On 07/14/2012 05:54 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
The above change of yours appear to imply that, at variance with what I
had in my first draft, perform_typedefs_access_check shouldn't really
gain a tsubst_flags_t argument, because now it's called by
instantiate_decl and instantiate_class_template_1
Hi,
and, first, thanks a lot for all the nice work and help on these issues!
On 07/13/2012 12:55 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.c b/gcc/cp/pt.c
index fec88eb..95c6464 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
@@ -8334,7 +8334,7 @@ apply_late_template_attributes (tree *decl_p,
On 06/15/2012 04:27 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
FAIL: g++.dg/template/access7.C -std=c++98 (test for errors, line 8)
FAIL: g++.dg/template/access7.C -std=c++98 (test for errors, line 12)
FAIL: g++.dg/template/access7.C -std=c++98 (test for warnings, line 17)
FAIL: g++.dg/template/access7.C
And here's a fix for the access7 failure, to be applied on top of your
patch.
I notice that your patch changes the behavior of C++98/03 mode as well,
which seems wrong to me; I think this is a big enough change that we
should limit it to C++11 mode.
Jason
commit
These patches fix the typedef11.C and friend13/15.C failures. Each
fixes a latent bug in the compiler.
1) We shouldn't do access control checking for typedefs used in the body
of a function when the declaration is instantiated; we should wait until
the body is instantiated.
2) We shouldn't
On 07/02/2012 09:47 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
FAIL: g++.dg/template/friend13.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors)
OK, the problem here is that we need to look up Outer::Inner in order to
generate the declaration of fooOuter, and we can't check whether
fooOuter is a friend of Outer until
On 06/15/2012 10:27 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
The problem is that with the patch applied we get errors of the no
matching function type, instead of access control errors.
I suppose this is expected, right?!?
Yes, but when we're printing the candidates we need to give an access
control error
On 06/15/2012 04:27 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
as I mentioned a few days ago, I'm working on implementing this
feature, which I personally consider rather high priority, from the
library point of view too (eg, type_traits).
I have been making some progress - I'm attaching below what I have
14 matches
Mail list logo
