On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> > wrote: >> On 09/04/2018 21:39, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> >>> cp_parser_check_template_parameters is supposed to catch when we have >>> the wrong number of template parameter lists, but it wasn't diagnosing >>> this case. Fixed by checking whether the thing we're declaring used a >>> template-id; the case of declaring a primary template, when we allow >>> one more template parameter list, uses a plain identifier. >> >> Nice, it looks like this also fixes the prehistoric c++/24314, which I still >> had assigned. > > Great! > >> When I worked a bit on it, relatively recently, in 2012, I >> failed to properly follow-up to your feedback on the mailing list, but I >> don't think we really nailed the problem, did we? >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg00504.html >> >> Or maybe we just tried to do too much, like doing away completely with >> cp_parser_check_template_parameters in favor of a bit of additional checking >> in maybe_process_partial_specialization. > > I'm sure late checking like we discussed there can also work, but this > ended up being a simple way to make the current code work better...
But as discussed in that thread, we should still improve the comment:
commit 2072134d123d64535baac00ea4bb6ffbce045caf Author: Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> Date: Tue Apr 10 09:42:54 2018 -0400 * parser.c (cp_parser_check_template_parameters): Improve comment. diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.c b/gcc/cp/parser.c index d4b62c75c44..849a75a1a51 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/parser.c +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c @@ -26452,8 +26452,8 @@ cp_parser_check_template_parameters (cp_parser* parser, lists, that's OK. */ if (parser->num_template_parameter_lists == num_templates) return true; - /* If there are more, but only one more, then we are referring to a - member template. That's OK too. */ + /* If there are more, but only one more, and the name ends in an identifier, + then we are declaring a primary template. That's OK too. */ if (!template_id_p && parser->num_template_parameter_lists == num_templates + 1) return true;