OK, thanks.
Jason
2011/12/27 Jason Merrill :
> On 12/27/2011 02:12 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>
>> - if (!scope_dependent_p)
>> + if (!dependent_scope_p (scope))
>
> I was thinking to change the line
>
>> scope_dependent_p = dependent_type_p (scope);
>
> to use dependent_scope_p instead of dependent_type_p.
OK, I
On 12/27/2011 02:12 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
- if (!scope_dependent_p)
+ if (!dependent_scope_p (scope))
I was thinking to change the line
scope_dependent_p = dependent_type_p (scope);
to use dependent_scope_p instead of dependent_type_p.
Jason
2011/12/21 Jason Merrill :
> This seems problematic to me; it could be that a dependent scope ends up
> matching a non-dependent base in the end, i.e.
>
> struct A { int x; };
>
> template
> struct B: A
> {
> using T::x;
> };
>
> B b;
Very nice indeed, I hadn't thought of that.
> this code is s
This seems problematic to me; it could be that a dependent scope ends up
matching a non-dependent base in the end, i.e.
struct A { int x; };
template
struct B: A
{
using T::x;
};
B b;
this code is silly, but I think well-formed, and that your patch will
break it.
I think that just chang
Hi,
As a follow up of c++/14258, this one is about undiagnosed using
declarations whose nested-name-specifier is not a base.
The diagnostic was only emitted at instantiation time, whereas it
could be emitted before.
I just removed a test to perform the verification before
instantiation, it seems t
