Hi,
On 28/02/2018 20:20, Jason Merrill wrote:
Hmm, the test seems wrong; the diagnostic talks about specializing the
arguments, but the actual test is checking whether the enclosing scope
is fully specialized. It looks like you'll give the same error for
template <class T>
struct A {
template <class U>
static const U u;
};
template <class T>
template <class U>
const U* A<T>::u<U*> = nullptr;
which does specialize the argument; since we accept
template <class T>
struct A {
template <class U>
struct B;
};
template <class T>
template <class U>
struct A<T>::B<U*> { };
we ought to accept the above as well.
So, we could reject the testcase with this error, but we would need to
test for it using the same check as in process_partial_specialization.
I see. Doing that seems relatively easy - I have a draft which appears
to work - but then we have immediately to change the gcc_assert at the
beginning of determine_specialization to let such specializations
through (of course it still uses the wrong test!!). I'm not sure about
the best way to do that... But that seems also doable. The next problem
is duplicate_decls which apparently misses a bit of code to understand
that the new declaration does not conflict with the old one near line
#1650... So, frankly, I think that even with your great guidance I would
need a few iterations to get right the whole package and we are so damn
close to the release. What do you think? Do you want to take this over,
or maybe you see us restricting a bit what we'll have working in this
area for 8.1.0?
Thanks,
Paolo.
