This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC / RFH] Re-opened C++/51213 (access control under SFINAE)
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:57:12 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [RFC / RFH] Re-opened C++/51213 (access control under SFINAE)
Looks good.
-------- Original Message --------
From: Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
Sent: Thu, Aug 2, 2012 01:09 PM
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [RFC / RFH] Re-opened C++/51213 (access control under SFINAE)
On 08/02/2012 06:53 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 12:21 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> + if (complain & tf_error)
>> + recheck_decl_substitution (spec, gen_tmpl, targ_ptr);
>> + else
>> + return error_mark_node;
>
> I think we want to be consistent with the end of the function about
> whether we return error_mark_node or the decl after giving access
> errors in non-SFINAE context; I don't have a strong opinion either
> way, but this returns the decl, and the end of the function returns
> error_mark_node.
I see. Then, I restarted testing with this variant.
Paolo.
/////////////////////