This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch] PR c++/26256
- From: Fabien Chêne <fabien dot chene at gmail dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:59:41 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch] PR c++/26256
- References: <AANLkTikY4pcci892bD0M2MsbakFvrK4r15csPFSLT5nO@mail.gmail.com> <4D1279FD.6010706@redhat.com> <AANLkTinkB+iwTHZXngtOa88rgBScyrMK2R9p7H5yCbrj@mail.gmail.com> <4D7297F5.2000708@redhat.com> <AANLkTimbWH16eyQGhxAMiCO+CnVQdRAi4V0U7=hAfv_6@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikiHetQQph8QGGU+YpodC4YK61-dg@mail.gmail.com> <4E020BE2.7080207@redhat.com> <CAFH4-di=DitSxtnhTM4cv_vgNchvgA2v42q=7xdxqxusKcEDbw@mail.gmail.com> <4E77D811.5000701@redhat.com> <CAFH4-dgBU6jm8owPex7JbnDfYuqK0-rE62kXYZsuuuMweOSxsg@mail.gmail.com> <4E7A28A0.8020805@redhat.com> <CAFH4-dhjWftGBWiORCt6mw_0UFeUHN-k-iXo7BfYqjamoLP3eQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E7B5816.6010802@redhat.com> <4E7BB7A5.8020305@redhat.com> <CAFH4-djv5gaJah69nQQ=4eo_h1yYf3jSsWGFhedbsUNsMUD5zA@mail.gmail.com> <46E788AC-54C0-45AE-A435-BD2F0950C0C2@oracle.com> <CAFH4-dhuF8akEZFAWaNVHVFOG=RmTFWwQi5N8qvJm-WyeK9whA@mail.gmail.com> <4815CE83-E59D-47D2-BE6B-33A01DED37B8@oracle.com> <CAFH4-dhS3DSQoC4ew2J3v-d_DVLysH=0SyChF3zrb6zkjnUumQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E808502.4000406@redhat.com>
Hi,
2011/9/26 Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>:
> On 09/25/2011 05:06 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>
>> + ?else if ((using_decl = strip_using_decl (member)) != member)
>
>> + ?/* If it is a using decl, use its underlying decl. ?*/
>> + ?type_decl = strip_using_decl (type_decl);
>
>> - ? ? ?if (DECL_NAME (field) == name
>> + ? ? ?if (DECL_NAME (decl) == name
>> ? ? ? ? ?&& (!want_type
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? || TREE_CODE (field) == TYPE_DECL
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? || DECL_CLASS_TEMPLATE_P (field)))
>> - ? ? ? return field;
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? || TREE_CODE (decl) == TYPE_DECL
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? || DECL_CLASS_TEMPLATE_P (decl)))
>> + ? ? ? return decl;
>
> Why do we need to strip the USING_DECL both in lookup_field_1 and in
> callers?
Sorry but I've failed to see why you called them callers of
lookup_field_1, could you elaborate ?
--
Fabien