This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
[RFH / Patch] c++/52432
- From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- To: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:11:23 +0100
- Subject: [RFH / Patch] c++/52432
today Jon filed this PR about 'reporting routines re-entered' with
-fdump-tree-gimple and first I tried to figure where we are trying to
produce an error from inside the diagnostic code itself.
Turns out that tsubst_copy_and_build, case CALL_EXPR, calls
unqualified_name_lookup_error unconditionally, that is without checking
that complain includes tf_error. This certainly cannot be Ok vs
dump_template_bindings which just passes tf_none.
Thus I added the check (see attached), and the interesting story begins
here ;) What happens is that c++/52432 is indeed fixed and the testsuite
is mostly Ok, but decltype32.C regresses, in that, instead of the
relatively concise message saying that "‘make_array’ was not declared in
this scope" we have a recursion of error messages, all identical, saying
that "‘make_array’ was not declared in this scope, and no declarations
were found by argument-dependent lookup at the point of instantiation".
In other terms, we get to the above mentioned case of
tsubst_copy_and_build a first time and we don't call
unqualified_name_lookup_error because complain is tf_none, thus the
error message currently produced in mainline is not produced, then we
get there again multiple, multiple times producing the permerror right
Looks like the issue has to do with the mechanism we have in
add_template_candidate_real which checks for actual errors produced via
the errorcount global in order to improve the diagnostics, but I'm not
sure yet about the details of that.
Thus I'm looking for some help about the best way to proceed. First, do
we agree that tsubst_copy_and_build should never call
unqualified_name_lookup_error unconditionally? Any tips about decltype32.C?
I'm still looking into the issue, anyway.
Description: Text document