2011/3/5 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>:
> On 03/04/2011 03:11 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, I've implemented what you were suggesting, and I don't understand
>> the following check in supplement_binding:
>>
>> else if (TREE_CODE (bval) == TYPE_DECL&& DECL_ARTIFICIAL (bval))
>> {
>> /* The old binding was a type name. It was placed in
>> VALUE field because it was thought, at the point it was
>> declared, to be the only entity with such a name. Move the
>> type name into the type slot; it is now hidden by the new
>> binding. */
>> binding->type = bval;
>> binding->value = decl;
>> binding->value_is_inherited = false;
>> }
>>
>> Why is it usefull ? It prevents the following illegal code from being
>> rejected:
>>
>> struct A
>> {
>> struct type {};
>> typedef int type;
>> };
>
> That's a bug. I guess the check above needs to make sure that decl is not a
> TYPE_DECL.
OK, FYI I have opened PR c++/48010 for this bug, which I am going to fix first.
--
Fabien
