This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [c++-concepts] code review
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Sutton <andrew dot n dot sutton at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:27:32 -0400
- Subject: Re: [c++-concepts] code review
- References: <CANq5Syt5s-NgazOYbT5wtYSRsbZUqcivoer1w4jiucx5qYKMfA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAiZkiAn9rpPmPKXztUA4rd3CH6w3=tn7jz=oksk65Ypx6RpGg at mail dot gmail dot com> <51B0B0ED dot 5090508 at redhat dot com> <CANq5SystWWs=AOAYAHmRjfx17itDrYQj+GtdUr=-XYGLV_4=6g at mail dot gmail dot com> <51B0F122 dot 6020301 at redhat dot com> <CANq5SysFjY39osn-Xp3HXE-Due7C=D2-VKrhjKdLtpws8rH=mg at mail dot gmail dot com> <51B62961 dot 1080409 at redhat dot com> <CANq5Syv_qh=Y-jy55hSMZyRz6xciC+4Ga5bVuUWK1R8FZ8NZNA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 06/11/2013 09:45 AM, Andrew Sutton wrote:
After investigating, neither call_expr nor resolve_nondeduced_context
do what I need. I need a resolution of a call expression that does not
return overload sets, especially in the case where the initial call
expression is already dependent.
Does this have to do with restrictions on overloading of concept functions?
Jason