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: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/61491


On 15 June 2014 16:37, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
> Yes, but if there is a template definition for the enum available when the
> specialization is declared, the enum template is implicitly instantiated
> along with its containing class, so the specialization is ill-formed because
> you can't define a specialization that has already been instantiated.  Which
> is what the example in the standard illustrates.

Ah, I see. So it's not just the difference in the underlying type,
it's that an unscoped
enum cannot be specialized to begin with, even when it has an underlying type.

Ok, then the patch does need further work. I don't know how to solve
that part yet,
guidance would be welcome.


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