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: [RFA] PATCH PR c++/40007

From: Dodji Seketeli <dodji at redhat dot com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
Cc: gcc patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 19:15:20 +0200
Subject: Re: [RFA] PATCH PR c++/40007
References: <20090522204857.15dcced9@tutu> <4A170EDD.7020405@redhat.com>

Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:

> Dodji Seketeli wrote:

> Why not do the same thing for functions?

I think I was just being overly conservative as I didn't want to
change the code path that was "working" earlier. Doing the same thing
does simplify the code. The attached updated patch does that.

> When can TI_TEMPLATE be something other than a template?

Never :) I have removed the test that was checking that.

FWIW the updated patch bootstraps and passes regtests.

Thanks.

-- 
Dodji Seketeli
Red Hat, Inc

Attachment: gcc-PR40007-patch-3.txt
Description: Text document

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFA] PATCH PR c++/40007
  - From: Jason Merrill

References:
- [RFA] PATCH PR c++/40007
  - From: Dodji Seketeli
- Re: [RFA] PATCH PR c++/40007
  - From: Jason Merrill

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