http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-07-17
16:37:48 UTC ---
this is fantastic - thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill 2011-07-17
02:34:15 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sun Jul 17 02:34:10 2011
New Revision: 176365
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176365
Log:
PR c++/45329
PR c++/48934
* cp-tree.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-09
20:10:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> If I understand your proposal correctly, we'd get something more like:
>
> foo.C:blahblah: error: no matching function for call to foo
> foo.C:blahblah: n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #14 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 19:20:49 UTC ---
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 07:16:49PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > foo.C:blahblah: error: no matching function for call to foo
> > foo.C:blahblah: note: can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #11 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 18:59:55 UTC ---
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 06:26:44PM +, jason at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > The hackish way of doing this would be to notice during deduction that
> > substitution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
19:16:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
>
> This PR is really just to get *anything* printed, so just a basic "substition
> failed" with no mention of which template parameter failed would be en
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
19:13:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
>
> foo.C:blahblah: error: no matching function for call to foo
> foo.C:blahblah: note: candidate is foo(blahblah)
> foo.c:blahblah: note: substitution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2011-05-09
18:17:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> The hackish way of doing this would be to notice during deduction that
> substitution of a function type failed, then go back and substitute piece-wise
> in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
Nathan Froyd changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
16:28:51 UTC ---
The point of that example is that even clang's "substitution failed" could be
improved, because T is substituted successfully into the return type
"S1::type" but not into the paramet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
16:24:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Oops, no, that's a mistake, the parameter should be named 't'
template struct S1 { typedef char type; };
template
typename S1::type
foo(typena
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #6 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 16:10:51 UTC ---
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 02:08:05PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> template struct S1 { typedef char type; };
>
> template
> typename S1::type
> f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #5 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 15:38:14 UTC ---
Thanks for checking. I'll attempt to the make the patch do something
intelligent on at least the original testcase and this:
> template struct S1 { typedef char ty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
14:05:06 UTC ---
Another example:
template struct S1 { typedef char type; };
template
typename S1::type
foo(typename S1::typo)
{ return t; }
char c = foo(1);
Here the return typ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
12:18:12 UTC ---
That patch makes no difference for the example in this PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-09
12:03:48 UTC ---
I forgot about that mail - I'll try the patch and get back to you, thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #1 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 11:53:58 UTC ---
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:39:35AM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> int foo(int);
>
> template
> struct sfinae
> { };
>
> template<>
> struct sfinae
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
