On 02/29/2012 08:47 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
The substitution failure should have removed the candidate from further
consideration; sounds like something isn't propagating the failure back
up (as I was talking about in my response to your 51214 patch).
No, wait, now we're talking about the erro
On 02/29/2012 01:11 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Thus I'm looking for some help about the best way to proceed. First, do
we agree that tsubst_copy_and_build should never call
unqualified_name_lookup_error unconditionally?
Yes.
Any tips about decltype32.C?
The substitution failure should have re
Hi,
today Jon filed this PR about 'reporting routines re-entered' with
-fdump-tree-gimple and first I tried to figure where we are trying to
produce an error from inside the diagnostic code itself.
Turns out that tsubst_copy_and_build, case CALL_EXPR, calls
unqualified_name_lookup_error unco
