Message ID | 4F4E6A4B.9080005@oracle.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
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 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). Jason
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 error messages explaining the substitution failure, right. I can't think of a reason for that to show up more than once. Jason
Index: pt.c =================================================================== --- pt.c (revision 184643) +++ pt.c (working copy) @@ -13918,7 +13918,8 @@ } if (TREE_CODE (function) == IDENTIFIER_NODE) { - unqualified_name_lookup_error (function); + if (complain & tf_error) + unqualified_name_lookup_error (function); release_tree_vector (call_args); return error_mark_node; }