This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ PATCH: PR 23293
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>We've got multiple bug reports making the opposite complaint -- and,
>>>at least for the foreseeable future, you can't have both. The
>>>problem is that the before-patch situation results in diagnostics
>>>that are downright wrong,
>>
>> Example, please?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23293
This one would be better if you only preserved namespace-scope
typedefs.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17763 is another example.
This one, too.
I might go a little further and drop namespace scope typedefs for
"simple" types like int.
>> That's very much like the current "with" clauses, ne? I think it's a
>> big advantage to see memnonic template parameter names there, as in
>> "with" clauses, rather than the numbers.
>
> But, again, wrong in things like:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99
I fail to see how this very real problem:
theory.cc:22: double ch (dummy<0>, dummy<n>) [with unsigned int m = 0]
^^^^^^^^
\__ INCORRECT
would be solved by using numbers instead of actual identifiers. You'd
end up with something like:
theory.cc:22: double ch (dummy<0>, dummy<#1>) [with unsigned int #2 = 0]
^^^^^^^^^
\__ STILL INCORRECT
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com