Hi,
On 14/05/19 21:05, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 03:01:35PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 5/14/19 11:28 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
another straightforward one sitting in my tree... Sanity checked on
x86_64-linux.
I suspect many/all of the TREE_CODE (x) == TEMPLATE_DECL
(or DECL_FUNCTION_TEMPLATE_P) could also be elided -- we don't have naked
function templates at that point, they're always wrapped in overloads.
Could you see if that's true?
That's what I pointed out here
<https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg00718.html>
but I thought it might be better to do it as a follow-up.
Yeah, on the other hand, we can as well sort out this now: after all, I
like to spend time on this kind of work also in the hope that little
buglets or issues will then become more evident. Thus, I'm removing all
those checks for TEMPLATE_DECL and DECL_FUNCTION_TEMPLATE_P, let's see
what regression testing tells us. To be clear: I'm leaving
TEMPLATE_ID_EXPR (two of those) alone.
Paolo.
