Re: [C++ patch] PR 20420

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

Hi again,

On 08/22/2012 05:13 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 08/22/2012 10:55 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > . thus, in short, what is happening is that, for this testcase:
> >
> > class B
> > {
> > protected:
> >    enum E { E1, E2, E3 };
> > };
> >
> > class D : private B
> > {
> > public:
> >    using B::E;
> >
> > private:
> >    enum E { };
> > };
> >
> > we parse the new declaration enum E { }; and we reach
> > supplement_binding_1 before setting the underlying type of the new
> > declaration. The old declaration is fine, would not ICE
> > dependent_type_p.
> So with your change would we still ICE if D were a template?  It seems
> like what we should be checking for is null underlying type.

In the meanwhile, I tried to actually write a patch doing away with the 
processing_template_decl check but failed.

The problem is: if, as in the below patch "3", I don't call 
dependent_type_p when the underlying type is null and the check overall 
fails, I see regressions for testcases like forw_enum7.C, because when 
templates are involved we actually want to call dependent_type_p and 
return true; if, as in the below "4", a null underlying type means that 
overall the check succeeds, then we don't error out anymore for the new 
testcases, we don't ICE but we don't have the diagnostics either.

I see the outcome of these experiments as an indication that we want the 
processing_template_decl check...

Paolo.

//////////////////////

Attachment: patch_20420_3
Description: Text document

Attachment: patch_20420_4
Description: Text document