[C++ RFC/Patch] PR 58561

Jason Merrill jason@redhat.com
Fri Jan 31 18:31:00 GMT 2014

On 01/29/2014 12:49 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> By the way,
> this recycling of TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARM + name seems weird to me too, I
> noticed it a couple of times already (I think it shows in an open
> diagnostic issue too). I think the alternative would an additional
> TREE_CODE and a lot of uses of it wherever now we just say
> TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARM (eg, in pt.c). Maybe it's worth it, maybe not, I
> don't know if Jason *actually* tried the idea in his local trees.

I didn't.  We represent auto as a TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARM because auto 
deduction works like template deduction, and if we wanted to call it 
something else we would need to replace it with a TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARM in 
order to do deduction, plus check for auto when checking whether a type 
is dependent.  So, doable, but kind of a pain.


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list