This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [PATCH] partial fix for PR 13594 (3.4 regression)
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, jason at redhat dot com, rsandifo at redhat dot com
- Date: 12 Jan 2004 21:53:31 -0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] partial fix for PR 13594 (3.4 regression)
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <orn08zpi4c.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><200401101358.15535.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr><or3cal2lah.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><ory8sd15bz.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
On Jan 12, 2004, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2004, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 2004, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
>>> FAIL: 23_containers/bitset/invalidation/1.cc (test for excess errors)
>>> WARNING: 23_containers/bitset/invalidation/1.cc compilation failed to produce
>>> executable
>> Here's a patch that fixes this problem. My mistake was to assume that
>> it was ok to use a single queue for strongly-associated and other
>> namespaces. Now I see it isn't.
> Digging deeper, I see that it should be. See, for example,
> [namespace.udir]/5. It doesn't seem like a name found in a given
> namespace is to hide names found in other namespaces whose
> declarations are to be visible in it because of using directives.
I misread. That is for unqualified lookup, but when we call the
patched function, we're doing qualified lookup. Nevermind, I now
believe the patch I posted earlier today actually fixes the problem at
hand properly.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Happy GNU Year! oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer