This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ PATCH]: Fix 16174
- From: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:53:59 +0100
- Subject: Re: [C++ PATCH]: Fix 16174
- Organization: CodeSourcery LLC
- References: <40DB1425.email@example.com> <40DB278B.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mark Mitchell wrote:
I think this patch is OK, but I want to think about it a little bit.
I think we should leave complete_type (with its current parameters)
around as a macro or forwarder function; that way the vast majority of
callers will not have to be changed, and new uses will not have to add
the extra parameter. That would also make it easier for me to see the
meat of the patch here.
Yeah, I pondered this too, but we already have 4 variants,
extern tree require_complete_type (tree);
extern tree complete_type (tree, tsubst_flags_t);
extern tree complete_type_or_diagnostic (tree, tree, int);
#define complete_type_or_else(T,V) (complete_type_or_diagnostic ((T), (V), 0))
I didn't want to make it more confusing!
Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
email@example.com :: http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk