On 02/13/2015 01:56 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Anything you would recommend besides filing a new Bug Report (or marking
an existing one as regression)?!?
Definitely do that. I guess it has to do with not recognizing a
USING_DECL as a template...
Jason
Hi,
On 02/13/2015 04:03 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 02/11/2015 02:10 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Today I was having a look to this pending issue and went astray due to
the broken thread: I wondered if, basing on Fabien' first try and the
comments accompanying tag_scope, it would make sense to use
On 02/11/2015 02:10 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Today I was having a look to this pending issue and went astray due to
the broken thread: I wondered if, basing on Fabien' first try and the
comments accompanying tag_scope, it would make sense to use
strip_using_decl only when the scope is ts_global (
Hi,
On 12/01/2014 09:59 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 12/01/2014 07:01 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
2014-11-03 21:18 GMT+01:00 Fabien Chêne :
2014-10-09 15:34 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
[...]
If the USING_DECL is returned, the code below will be rejected as
expected, but the error message will not me
On 12/01/2014 07:01 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
2014-11-03 21:18 GMT+01:00 Fabien Chêne :
2014-10-09 15:34 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
[...]
If the USING_DECL is returned, the code below will be rejected as
expected, but the error message will not mention the line where the
USING_DECL appears as the
2014-11-03 21:18 GMT+01:00 Fabien Chêne :
> 2014-10-09 15:34 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
> [...]
>>> If the USING_DECL is returned, the code below will be rejected as
>>> expected, but the error message will not mention the line where the
>>> USING_DECL appears as the previous definition, but at the
2014-10-09 15:34 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
[...]
>> If the USING_DECL is returned, the code below will be rejected as
>> expected, but the error message will not mention the line where the
>> USING_DECL appears as the previous definition, but at the target
>> declaration of the USING_DECL instead.
On 10/08/2014 01:30 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
2014-10-07 23:13 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
It seems to me that the problem is that lookup_and_check_tag is rejecting a
USING_DECL rather than returning it. What if we return the USING_DECL?
If the USING_DECL is returned, the code below will be rejec
2014-10-07 23:13 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill :
> On 09/24/2014 05:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> On 09/24/2014 05:06 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, just stripping the USING_DECL in lookup_and_check_tag
>>> does not really work because some diagnotic codes expect the
>>> USING_DECL no
On 09/24/2014 05:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/24/2014 05:06 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
Unfortunately, just stripping the USING_DECL in lookup_and_check_tag
does not really work because some diagnotic codes expect the
USING_DECL not to be stripped.
It seems to me that the problem is that look
On 09/24/2014 05:06 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
Unfortunately, just stripping the USING_DECL in lookup_and_check_tag
does not really work because some diagnotic codes expect the
USING_DECL not to be stripped.
How so?
Jason
Hi,
The problem here is that the use of an elaborated-type-specifier
(introduced via 'struct') does not find USING_DECLs, whereas it does
for a simple-type-specifier. That's caused by xref_tag (through
lookup_and_check_tag) that does not strip USING_DECLs and thus fails
to return a type when it ha
12 matches
Mail list logo
