This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ RFC / Patch] PR 54080, PR 52875 and more (aka SFINAE vs template recursion depth)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 05:17:28 -0500
- Subject: Re: [C++ RFC / Patch] PR 54080, PR 52875 and more (aka SFINAE vs template recursion depth)
- References: <5203F75A dot 9080206 at oracle dot com> <52042C5C dot 7060702 at redhat dot com> <520496A1 dot 6030700 at oracle dot com> <CAAiZkiB34qGA5heNnAiJjsxyRNHQQ036g-wmNOAx_ro+kY8ODQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <5204B64D dot 1060108 at oracle dot com>
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Paolo Carlini <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 08/09/2013 10:46 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> I think we should find ways to have the pretty printer in the diagnostic
>> framework stop trying to redo most of the work done by the type checker. In
>> its current form, that is fragile. -- Gaby
> Yeah. That tsubst (..., tf_none, ...) from dump_template_bindings, always
> seemed a little weird to me. Fact is, we have got quite a few serious
> diagnostic bugs where we print *very little* sensible before the Error
> reporting routines re-entered message. Like 54080 and 52875, but I'm sure
> there are more.
> Do you have any tips about a reasonable way to handle the latter in the
> short term?
I arrived on the west coast with little sleep, and I can't find sleep just right
now (and you may argue reading gcc list isn't a good way to find sleep
me think about it more.