This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [c++-concepts] code review
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at axiomatics dot org>
- Cc: Andrew Sutton <andrew dot n dot sutton at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:30:32 -0500
- Subject: Re: [c++-concepts] code review
- References: <CANq5Syt5s-NgazOYbT5wtYSRsbZUqcivoer1w4jiucx5qYKMfA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAiZkiAn9rpPmPKXztUA4rd3CH6w3=tn7jz=oksk65Ypx6RpGg at mail dot gmail dot com> <51B0B0ED dot 5090508 at redhat dot com> <CANq5SystWWs=AOAYAHmRjfx17itDrYQj+GtdUr=-XYGLV_4=6g at mail dot gmail dot com> <51B0F122 dot 6020301 at redhat dot com> <CANq5SysFjY39osn-Xp3HXE-Due7C=D2-VKrhjKdLtpws8rH=mg at mail dot gmail dot com> <51B62961 dot 1080409 at redhat dot com> <CAAiZkiDY5LZRwgEAmc1VPhbMXJ1ytU_Q2Fj9tSyN1M_T7NMMfw at mail dot gmail dot com> <51B8A36C dot 1080005 at redhat dot com> <CANq5SyuWOKxWshSBb8uxtN8d6HMgifJdDcQSrsSwazRjE=v2NQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <51BBC613 dot 5040708 at redhat dot com> <CANq5SysgoJ0nVdrqLMjFqaWcmz97dB03qbKCs_ZpoBS+OVYzfg at mail dot gmail dot com> <51BF617D dot 3080101 at redhat dot com> <CANq5SyshsCtsQgGvCj6hVexa4m-st0-yM1PpLq=R68YXkfz_aw at mail dot gmail dot com> <51C1BE59 dot 6040400 at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/18/2013 12:27 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote:
>>
>> There was a bug in instantiation_dependent_expr_r that would cause
>> trait expressions like __is_class(int) to be marked as type dependent.
>> It was always testing the 2nd operand, even for unary traits
>> (NULL_TREE turns out to be type dependent).
>
>
> I fixed that last month:
>
> 2013-05-20 Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
>
> PR c++/57016
> * pt.c (instantiation_dependent_r) [TRAIT_EXPR]: Only check
> type2 if there is one.
The last merge to c++-concepts was a little bit before
that (2013-06-16), so the fix wasn't on the branch. As I discussed
with Andrew a couple of weeks ago, I have been holding back the
merge from trunk because he has these patch series in the queue.
That also means we don't get these sort of fixes before a while.
Maybe I should just go ahead with the merge so that we have
conflicts, and potentially less duplication of work in terms of fixing
the compiler.
-- Gaby