Re: [C++ Patch] PR 53567

[Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>]

On 06/05/2012 01:45 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 06/05/2012 01:23 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 06/04/2012 06:55 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > > If, more generally, you mean we should remove it completely, I'm afraid
> > > some cases are rather nasty. For example, I think that whenever we go
> > > through implicit_conversion, thus its flags &=, the following function
> > > calls can easily have at the same time complain & tf_error true and
> > > flags & LOOKUP_COMPLAIN false.
> >
> > In cases where we currently don't set LOOKUP_COMPLAIN in flags, we 
> > can instead set complain to tf_none.
> Ok, I'll see what happens in the various specific circumstances. 
> Indeed, earlier today I wondered myself if in principle not setting 
> LOOKUP_COMPLAIN was just tf_none, but looking at the code things 
> seemed more complex, when eg we are currently warning without checking 
> LOOKUP_COMPLAIN and with complain available normally we would protect 
> the warning with complain & tf_warning. But I don't want to speak too 
> early ;) Let me see.
In fact, I think setting complain to tf_warning may work better.

Paolo.