On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 03/28/2011 08:28 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote: >> >> A few comments: >> 1. I'm not sure about what should happen if the begin/end found in class >> scope are not ordinary functions. > > Whatever range.begin() would mean if written explicitly. > >> My guess is that if it is a function >> (static or non-static) it is called normally, and if it is a member >> variable it is searched for an operator()(). If it is a type it should >> fail. > > Yes, because we can't use . syntax to name type members.
Yeah, actually what I meant is whether: struct S { typedef int begin, end; }; //... for (auto x : S()) ; should fall back to ADL or else fail at once. My guess is that is should fail, but curiously enough my patch does ADL... >> + id_begin = get_identifier ("begin"); >> + *begin = build_qualified_name (/*type=*/NULL_TREE, >> + TREE_TYPE (range), >> + id_begin, >> + /*template_p=*/false); >> + *begin = finish_class_member_access_expr(range, *begin, >> + false, tf_none); > > Don't call build_qualified_name here; the standard doesn't say > range.T::begin(), just range.begin(). That's curious, because I tested with virtual functions with a class hierarchy, and it worked as expected. My understanding is that the range.T::begin() syntax would require a call to adjust_result_of_qualified_name_lookup. But again, I've just tried removing the call to build_qualified_name and it works just the same. It looks to me that finish_class_member_access_expr is a super-smart functions and "just works" with many kinds of input. > Also, we can't just call finish_class_member_access_expr here because it > returns error_mark_node for any error condition, so we can't tell the > difference between a lookup that didn't find anything (in which case we want > to fall back to ADL) and an access violation (in which case we want to give > an error). I'll dare say that you are wrong with this one, if only because I've just debugged it. If the member begin is private, for instance, finish_class_member_access_expr returns ok, and then the error is emitted from build_new_method_call. > We need to do the lookup directly first, and then do > finish_class_member_access_expr after we've decided to use the members. But maybe you are right here anyway, because I think that there may be are errors from finish_class_member_access_expr that we want to diagnose right away and errors that we want to silence, and the tsubst_flags_t does not do this. I'm preparing another patch with your suggestions and a few testcases. Regards. -- Rodrigo