------- Comment #8 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-09-02 03:50 ------- Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] Template specialization with array rejected
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu wrote: > ------- Comment #7 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-09-02 01:39 > ------- > Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 regression] Template specialization > with array rejected > > On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 22:30 +0000, mark at codesourcery dot com wrote: >> So, that's what should be fixed. > Except that means introducing a language hook which > is only to be useful in one place. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But, introducing NON_LVALUE_EXPRs that we are just going to throw away is a bad thing. And, yes, if we can avoid generating MINUS_EXPRs, that would be even better. In general, it might be better if range types were expressed as half-open intervals, rather than closed intervals, since then the number of elements in the array would be immediately available, and that's something often wants. > The real real way of fixing this is to move the C++ > front-end's templates from using trees You bring this up every so often, but I am totally unpersuaded. Using trees is just fine for C++. The advantages to not using trees would be interfacing to things other than GCC itself; there are no advantages within the compiler. For example, if we didn't have trees for C++, we'd be totally unable to use fold. In any case, this is entirely orthogonal to the issue at hand. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28886
