This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/61491
- From: Ville Voutilainen <ville dot voutilainen at gmail dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:20:41 +0300
- Subject: Re: [C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/61491
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAFk2RUb4X6hPgR7GoX-pgP9Uy0qCtUu2mGa+G+pTdB-15GqMwQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFk2RUa_Of+9PKUhZ1HmtJR+ME=e9BDWxZymSsfggT499crg+Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <539B2D34 dot 6030403 at redhat dot com> <CAFk2RUZHVfbqOBH6PDEcyyoVOP_=LSKtvgxdKKk+whQ=uXBtPQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <539B43FC dot 30704 at redhat dot com> <CAFk2RUYQza5oQwXS+-kjtLY2kuxda5Xi5kggBUUBjSeeRXVW+Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <539DA1B5 dot 4070309 at redhat dot com>
On 15 June 2014 16:37, Jason Merrill <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.