2011/10/12 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>: >>> Copying the decl is unlikely to do what we want, I think. Does putting >>> the >>> target decl directly into the method vec work? >> >> Unfortunately not, it ends up with the same error: undefined >> reference. > > Hunh, that's surprising.
I have found it quite surprising as well. Thus, I am going to look into it a second time (perhaps next week, I'll be very busy this week). >> Furthermore, I don't think it is the right approach since >> the access may be different between the member function and the using >> declaration... Never mind. > > I would expect the existing access declaration code to deal with that, > though I could be wrong. OK, we will see... > There don't seem to be any tests for a class that both uses and defines > functions with the same name to verify that both functions can be called; I > suspect that doesn't work yet with this patch. Does the attached testcase checked what you mention ? -- Fabien
