Re: [C++ RFC/Patch] PR c++/71665

[Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>]

Hi,

On 28/07/2016 16:28, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
> > Ah sorry, I missed the *type* bit. The below passes testing on x86_64-linux.
> > I don't think we need to check the type again after cxx_constant_value?!?
> No, we don't.  The patch is OK.
>
> > While finally spending a decent amount of time on this issue I noticed that
> > current clang appears to enforce integral or *unscoped* enumeration type and
> > tweaking our code in the obvious way doesn't cause regressions, we of course
> > reject earlier (ie, not as "could not convert ‘(E)1’ from ‘E’ to ‘unsigned
> > int’") in build_enumerator snippets like:
> >
> > enum class E { e = 1 };
> >
> > class A
> > {
> >    enum { a = E::e };
> > };
> Sure, that change could improve diagnostic quality a bit.
Thanks Jason. Then I'm regression testing again the below and I mean to 
commit it later today.

Thanks again,
Paolo.

/////////////////////

Attachment: CL_71665_3
Description: Text document

Attachment: patch_71665_3
Description: Text document