[PATCH] PR c++/26693
Dodji Seketeli
dodji@redhat.com
Thu Nov 13 00:24:00 GMT 2008
Jason Merrill a écrit :
> Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>> 2/ When tsubst() encounters a typedef variant type, it tries to
>> "reuse" its specialization, instead of tsubst-ing its main variant
>> type. This works great. But when the main variant type is a
>> TYPENAME_TYPE, I think we need to make sure the main variant type can
>> be properly tsubst-ed before attempting to reuse the specialization of
>> the typedef variant type.
>
> This sounds wrong to me: if tsubsting the TYPENAME_TYPE was going to be
> a problem, we ought to get that error when we instantiate the class of
> which the typedef is a member.
>
In this code example:
1 template<typename> struct A
2 {
3 typedef int X;
4 static const int i = 0;
5 };
6
7 template<typename> struct B
8 {
9 B(const B&); // { dg-message "candidate" }
10 typedef typename A<char[A<B>::i]>::X Y;
11 template<typename T> B(T, Y); // { dg-error "call" }
12 };
13
14 B<int> b(0,0);
There are two sets of error g++ should give us.
The first one is:
: In instantiation of 'B<int>':
:14: instantiated from here
:10: warning: ISO C++ forbids zero-size array
: In instantiation of 'B<int>':
:14: instantiated from here
I think it's the one you are talking about. We get that one, even if I
don't add what I was refering to in the point 2/ of my previous email.
The second set of error g++ should give us is:
:11: error: no matching function for call to 'B<int>::B(int, int)'
:9: note: candidates are: B< <template-parameter-1-1> >::B(const B<
<template-parameter-1-1> >&) [with <template-parameter-1-1> = int]
This second set of error is missing if I don't handle the particular
case of typedef variants of TYPENAME_TYPE as was talking about in 2/.
I believe this is one is generated because during instantiation of the
last parameter (namely the Y typedef) of B<int>::B(int, int), the
function tsubst() receives a typedef variant of a TYPENAME_TYPE.
Before this patch, the condition:
if (TYPE_P (t)
&& TYPE_NAME (t)
&& TYPE_NAME (t) != TYPE_MAIN_DECL (t))
{
was not true, because t was not a typedef variant. So t was handled by
the TYPENAME_TYPE case that comes later in that function and an error
was raised.
But after the patch, this condition becomes true and later this if:
if (DECL_CLASS_SCOPE_P (decl)
&& CLASSTYPE_TEMPLATE_INFO (DECL_CONTEXT (decl))
&& uses_template_parms (DECL_CONTEXT (decl)))
{
tree tmpl = most_general_template (DECL_TI_TEMPLATE (decl));
tree gen_args = tsubst (DECL_TI_ARGS (decl), args, complain,
in_decl);
r = retrieve_specialization (tmpl, gen_args, false);
}
becomes true as well, and later r is returned. This code path doesn't
raise the error that was raised previously.
So my understanding is the typedef variant of TYPENAME_TYPE triggered a
different code path that lead to some errors not being raised. I might
be missing something at this point, but I can't see what :-(.
>> + if (DECL_IS_BUILTIN (x)
>> + || (TREE_TYPE (x) != error_mark_node
>> + && TYPE_NAME (type) != x
>> + /* We don't want to copy the type when all we're
>> + doing is making a TYPE_DECL for the purposes of
>> + inlining. */
>> + && (!TYPE_NAME (type)
>> + || TYPE_NAME (type) != DECL_ABSTRACT_ORIGIN (x))))
>> + clone_underlying_type (x);
>
> This is wrong: if DECL_IS_BUILTIN (x) we don't want to create a typedef
> variant, we just want to set TYPE_NAME (type) to x.
>
Ah. I did this because clone_underlying_type handles that case of
DECL_IS_BUILTING (x). I thought duplicating that here would not be
desirable. So yes, the initial clone_underlying_type does more than just
creating a typedef variant.
Thanks,
Dodji.
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list