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: [Patch] PR c++/26256

On 09/21/2011 01:59 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote: 
          if (!DECL_DEPENDENT_P (field))
-           continue;
+           {
+             tree using_decl = USING_DECL_DECLS (field);
+             if ((TREE_CODE (using_decl) == FIELD_DECL
+                  || TREE_CODE (using_decl) == TYPE_DECL)
+&&  DECL_NAME (using_decl) == name)
+               return using_decl;
+             continue;
+           }


This section needs a comment.  Why do we look through USING_DECL for these
two kinds of member but not others?


I was looking explicitely for a FIELD_DECL or a TYPE_DECL because it
was crashing if I didn't. In fact, it was simply that DECL_NAME needs
at least tree_minimal, which OVERLOAD doesn't have. Is there a way to
properly check that DECL_NAME will succeed ?

You could check DECL_P first, but don't we want to return the OVERLOAD here, too? You can use get_first_fn to get a FUNCTION_DECL out of anything that satisfies is_overloaded_fn.

Jason

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