| Message ID | 4EAAE8B1.6010801@oracle.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
OK. Jason
On 10/28/2011 08:19 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > OK. > > Jason Humpf, looks I did something wrong when testing this and now I see the new testcase failing. I'm going to look a bit into this, and otherwise in an hour or so will simply revert the whole thing. Sorry, Paolo.
On 10/29/2011 01:53 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > On 10/28/2011 08:19 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> OK. >> >> Jason > Humpf, looks I did something wrong when testing this and now I see the > new testcase failing. I'm going to look a bit into this, and otherwise > in an hour or so will simply revert the whole thing. I reverted it. Had inadvertently tested with checking disabled, the problem with checking enabled happens earlier than that. Paolo.
On 10/28/2011 08:10 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > I reverted it. Had inadvertently tested with checking disabled, the > problem with checking enabled happens earlier than that. Was there a problem with the patch? It still looks correct even if it doesn't fix this testcase, so there's no need to revert it. Jason
On 11/07/2011 09:39 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 10/28/2011 08:10 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> I reverted it. Had inadvertently tested with checking disabled, the >> problem with checking enabled happens earlier than that. > > Was there a problem with the patch? It still looks correct even if it > doesn't fix this testcase, so there's no need to revert it. Oh, thanks for paying attention to that. Sure, I can reapply it, without the testcase, however, because it fails when checking mode is enabled, because, as I briefly mentioned, the problem with an unwanted NAMESPACE node happens earlier in case COMPONENT_REF. By the way, for the ice-on-invalid side of these issues - I'm not talking about the non-trivial reject-valid ones - I'm still wondering whether we couldn't reject the code much earlier (if you remember, at some point, I tried to even patch the parser, and apparently things were working, personally I wasn't able to construct snippets wrongly rejected) Paolo.
Index: testsuite/g++.dg/template/crash109.C =================================================================== --- testsuite/g++.dg/template/crash109.C (revision 0) +++ testsuite/g++.dg/template/crash109.C (revision 0) @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +// PR c++/50864 + +namespace impl +{ + template <class T> T create(); +} + +template <class T, class U, __SIZE_TYPE__ + = sizeof(impl::create<T>() -> impl::create<U>())> // { dg-error "not a member" } +struct foo; Index: cp/pt.c =================================================================== --- cp/pt.c (revision 180619) +++ cp/pt.c (working copy) @@ -13741,14 +13741,12 @@ tsubst_copy_and_build (tree t, else if (TREE_CODE (member) == SCOPE_REF && TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (member, 1)) == TEMPLATE_ID_EXPR) { - tree tmpl; - tree args; - /* Lookup the template functions now that we know what the scope is. */ - tmpl = TREE_OPERAND (TREE_OPERAND (member, 1), 0); - args = TREE_OPERAND (TREE_OPERAND (member, 1), 1); - member = lookup_qualified_name (TREE_OPERAND (member, 0), tmpl, + tree scope = TREE_OPERAND (member, 0); + tree tmpl = TREE_OPERAND (TREE_OPERAND (member, 1), 0); + tree args = TREE_OPERAND (TREE_OPERAND (member, 1), 1); + member = lookup_qualified_name (scope, tmpl, /*is_type_p=*/false, /*complain=*/false); if (BASELINK_P (member)) @@ -13762,7 +13760,7 @@ tsubst_copy_and_build (tree t, } else { - qualified_name_lookup_error (object_type, tmpl, member, + qualified_name_lookup_error (scope, tmpl, member, input_location); return error_mark_node; }