Hi,
On 07/09/2015 06:33 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/09/2015 12:09 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
the DR got resolved in time for C++11 and Jonathan noticed that we
should remove the pedwarn, not a big deal. Tested x86_64-linux.
How about adding the testcase from the DR as well? OK with that change.
Thanks. That revealed three interesting details. First, I suppose we
want to use the testcase in the amended form appearing in C++11, thus
with char as underlying type for the last two lines, instead of int
(otherwise we reject both for the wrong reason, likewise all the other
compilers I have at hand). That said, the following two lines of the
testcase trigger another pedwarn, in the parser, about enumeration
templates:
template<class T> enum A<T>::E : T { eT };
template<class T> enum class A<T>::S : T { sT };
Finally, we do *not* reject, as we should, the line:
template<> enum A<char>::E : char { echar };
Then, overall, is it Ok to simply suppress the pedwarn in C++11, and
xfail for now the error? Should I open a new, separate bug report about
the latter? (note that the issue, failing to reject an explicit
specialization after instantiation, doesn't sound new to me and seems
more general than enum-related issues...)
Thanks!
Paolo.
/////////////////////////
Index: cp/parser.c
===================================================================
--- cp/parser.c (revision 225614)
+++ cp/parser.c (working copy)
@@ -15827,8 +15827,9 @@ cp_parser_enum_specifier (cp_parser* parser)
type = TREE_TYPE (name);
if (TREE_CODE (type) == TYPENAME_TYPE)
{
- /* Are template enums allowed in ISO? */
- if (template_parm_scope_p ())
+ /* Template enums are allowed in C++11. */
+ if (template_parm_scope_p ()
+ && cxx_dialect < cxx11)
pedwarn (type_start_token->location, OPT_Wpedantic,
"%qD is an enumeration template", name);
/* ignore a typename reference, for it will be solved by name
Index: cp/pt.c
===================================================================
--- cp/pt.c (revision 225614)
+++ cp/pt.c (working copy)
@@ -970,11 +970,10 @@ maybe_process_partial_specialization (tree type)
}
else if (processing_specialization)
{
- /* Someday C++0x may allow for enum template specialization. */
+ /* Under DR 1206 enum template specializations are allowed. */
if (cxx_dialect > cxx98 && TREE_CODE (type) == ENUMERAL_TYPE
&& CLASS_TYPE_P (context) && CLASSTYPE_USE_TEMPLATE (context))
- pedwarn (input_location, OPT_Wpedantic, "template specialization "
- "of %qD not allowed by ISO C++", type);
+ ;
else
{
error ("explicit specialization of non-template %qT", type);
Index: testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/enum30.C
===================================================================
--- testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/enum30.C (revision 0)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/enum30.C (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+// PR c++/61491, DR 1206
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+template <class D> struct Base
+{
+ enum class E : unsigned;
+ E e;
+ Base(E e) : e(e) {}
+};
+
+struct X;
+
+template<> enum class Base<X>::E : unsigned { a, b };
+
+struct X : Base<X>
+{
+ X() : Base<X>(E::b) {}
+};
+
+X x;
Index: testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/enum31.C
===================================================================
--- testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/enum31.C (revision 0)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/enum31.C (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+// DR 1206, PR c++/61491
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+template<class T> struct A {
+ enum E : T;
+ enum class S : T;
+};
+
+template<> enum A<int>::E : int { eint };
+template<> enum class A<int>::S : int { sint };
+template<class T> enum A<T>::E : T { eT };
+template<class T> enum class A<T>::S : T { sT };
+template<> enum A<char>::E : char { echar }; // { dg-error "after
instantiation" "" { xfail *-*-* } }
+template<> enum class A<char>::S : char { schar };
