This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Renaming IS_AGGR_TYPE & co

Some additional details...
> You are right, in the sense that actually the TYPENAME_TYPE comes from a
> different caller, finish_base_specifier (in semantics.c). The below is
> is the complete call stack. Then, would it make sense to change somehow
> finish_base_specifier to  allow for TYPENAME_TYPEs?
>   
Doing, in finish_base_specifier, something like:

-  else if (! is_aggr_type (base, 1))
+  else if (TREE_CODE (base) != TYPENAME_TYPE
+          && TREE_CODE (base) != TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARM
+          && TREE_CODE (base) != BOUND_TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM
+          && ! is_class_type (base, 1))
     result = NULL_TREE;

allows the testsuite to pass...

Paolo.
Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]