Re: [c++] Question about "write_unscoped_name (const tree decl)"

On 07/29/2013 07:14 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote: 2013/7/29 Andreas Schwab : Looks like r153734 got it wrong first. It was supposed to revert r149964, but failed. Then r153742 reverted the revertion, and when r153768 reintroduced it it was apparently modeled after r153734 instead of the stat

Re: [c++] Question about "write_unscoped_name (const tree decl)"

2013/7/29 Andreas Schwab : > Alexander Ivchenko writes: > >> BTW: First the check was "|| context == NULL", then it was removed by >> r149964 and then came back as "|| context != NULL" by r153768. > > Looks like r153734 got it wrong first. It was supposed to revert > r149964, but failed. Then r1

Re: [c++] Question about "write_unscoped_name (const tree decl)"

Alexander Ivchenko writes: > BTW: First the check was "|| context == NULL", then it was removed by > r149964 and then came back as "|| context != NULL" by r153768. Looks like r153734 got it wrong first. It was supposed to revert r149964, but failed. Then r153742 reverted the revertion, and whe

[c++] Question about "write_unscoped_name (const tree decl)"

Hi, In gcc/cp/mangle.c (write_unscoped_name) we have: /* If not, it should be either in the global namespace, or directly in a local function scope. */ gcc_assert (context == global_namespace || context != NULL || TREE_CODE (context) == FU