[Patch] PR c++/26256

[Jason Merrill]

On 12/20/2010 07:02 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
> +           {
> +             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;
> +           }

I think if a USING_DECL designates a function, it shouldn't be in 
TYPE_FIELDS.  And if we do need any code for handling USING_DECL here, 
don't we need it for the sorted case above as well?

> -  if (TREE_CODE (decl) == TYPE_DECL && DECL_ARTIFICIAL (decl))
> +  if (TREE_CODE (decl) == TYPE_DECL && DECL_ARTIFICIAL (decl)
> +      && (TREE_CODE (bval) != USING_DECL
> +         || (!DECL_DEPENDENT_P (bval)
> +             && (TREE_CODE (USING_DECL_DECLS (bval)) != TYPE_DECL))))

Why is this change needed?  Why is the unconditional setting of 
binding->type when we see a nested class no longer appropriate?

It seems to me that instead of special-casing using-declarations in 
supplement_binding, we want the code that currently checks the tree code 
of decl and bval to look through USING_DECLs.  Likewise in 
push_class_level_binding.

How are using-declarations combined with normal declarations?

Jason