Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Marek Polacek wrote: > Fixed. Here is a small follow-up patch that I applied on top of this. It uses , improves markup, and simplifies language a bit. (Note that if we have "member" is a meta-variable, then we also need to mark it up as "member" whenever we refer to it.)

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 09:08:42AM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Marek Polacek wrote: > > Like this? > > As a consequence, the following examples are invalid and G++ will no longer > -compile them: > +compile them, because, in the following examples, G++ used to treat >

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Marek Polacek wrote: > Like this? As a consequence, the following examples are invalid and G++ will no longer -compile them: +compile them, because, in the following examples, G++ used to treat +this->member where member has a non-dependent type, as +type-dependent, and now

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 02:14:14PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: >> I'm not suggesting to drop both. But: >> >> »As a consequence, the following examples are invalid and G++ will no >> longer compile them, because, in

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 02:14:14PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > I'm not suggesting to drop both. But: > > »As a consequence, the following examples are invalid and G++ will no > longer compile them, because, in the following examples, G++ used to...« > > The second occurrence of "the

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On 2017.02.08 at 13:56 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 12:54:44PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2017.02.08 at 12:05 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 04:17:48PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Jonathan

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 12:54:44PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2017.02.08 at 12:05 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 04:17:48PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely > > > wrote: > > > > On 07/02/17

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On 2017.02.08 at 12:05 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 04:17:48PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On 07/02/17 15:04 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > > >> > > >> Thanks much for the review. Looks

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 04:17:48PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 07/02/17 15:04 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > >> > >> Thanks much for the review. Looks ok now? > > I'd suggest adding something to say that the

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 07/02/17 15:04 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: >> >> Thanks much for the review. Looks ok now? I'd suggest adding something to say that the reason these are now being diagnosed is that G++ used to treat e.g.

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On 07/02/17 15:04 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: Thanks much for the review. Looks ok now? Looks great.

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 01:44:44PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 07/02/17 14:27 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > You could drop the namespace. Also "struct A" would be better, because > > > otherwise fn1 is a private and thus unaccessible in fn2. > > > > True. So how about this extended

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On 07/02/17 14:27 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: You could drop the namespace. Also "struct A" would be better, because otherwise fn1 is a private and thus unaccessible in fn2. True. So how about this extended version, which also mentions more examples of what might now fail? Index:

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

> You could drop the namespace. Also "struct A" would be better, because > otherwise fn1 is a private and thus unaccessible in fn2. True. So how about this extended version, which also mentions more examples of what might now fail? Index: porting_to.html

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:00:38PM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 02/06/2017 01:03 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > No, this is a bug. > > Yup. I've opened PR79393. Marek

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On 02/06/2017 01:03 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: No, this is a bug. Yup. -- Nathan Sidwell

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On 2017.02.06 at 18:13 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > This patch adds a description of something I noticed while doing the > Fedora mass rebuild. Do we want to say more about the invalidity of > the incomplete type case? > + > +GCC 7 no longer accepts ill-formed code involving use of an

Re: [wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > This patch adds a description of something I noticed while doing the > Fedora mass rebuild. Do we want to say more about the invalidity of > the incomplete type case? Here's the relevant rule in the standard: 14.6/8:

[wwwdocs] Add a case to porting_to + a question wrt validity of another one

This patch adds a description of something I noticed while doing the Fedora mass rebuild. Do we want to say more about the invalidity of the incomplete type case? Furthermore I noticed that the testcase below doesn't compile anymore since r240874; Nathan, is that desirable? class C { public: