>>Do you see a reason this wouldn't work? No, I do not see any.This is good. >>so it's probably simplest to go ahead with mine. Yes, thank you.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 9:48 PM Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 11/2/20 10:10 AM, kamlesh kumar wrote: > > addressed jason comments. > > no regression due to this, tested on x86_64 linux. > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 11:09 PM Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 10/22/20 1:31 PM, kamlesh kumar wrote: > >>> Attaching the patch file. > >>> > >>> >>Instead of building a hash table, would it work to handle ambiguity by > >>> >>checking whether one of the classes is a base of the other? > >> > >>> Fixing for cases like: struct B: A<int>,A<int,int> may not be cleaner > >>> this way. > >> > >> Why not? Your patch does extra work even when there's no ambiguity. > >> > >>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 3:23 AM Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com > >>> <mailto:ja...@redhat.com>> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > On 10/21/20 6:32 AM, kamlesh kumar wrote: > >>> > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog > >>> > > ----------------------------------- > >>> > > > >>> > > 2020-10-21 Kamlesh Kumar <kamleshbha...@gmail.com > >>> <mailto:kamleshbha...@gmail.com>> > >>> > > > >>> > > PR c++/97453 > >>> > > * pt.c (get_template_base): Implement DR2303, > >>> > > Consider closest base while template > >>> > > deduction when base of base also matches. > >>> > > > >>> > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > >>> > > ------------------------------------------ > >>> > > > >>> > > 2020-10-21 Kamlesh Kumar <kamleshbha...@gmail.com > >>> <mailto:kamleshbha...@gmail.com>> > >>> > > > >>> > > * g++.dg/Drs/dr2303.C: New Test > >>> > > > >>> > > -------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > >>> > > As part of this patch I Implemented fix for below defect report in > >>> cwg > >>> > > https://wg21.cmeerw.net/cwg/issue2303 . > >>> > > >>> > Thanks! > >>> > > >>> > Please see https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html for guidance on email > >>> > subject lines; for this patch I'd think something like > >>> > > >>> > [PATCH] c++: Implement DR2303 [PR97453] > >>> > > >>> > Also, your patch was corrupted by word wrap; the easiest way to avoid > >>> > that is probably to attach the file rather than copy it into the > >>> message. > >>> > > >>> > > Reg tested on x86_64 and did not found any failure. > >>> > > Patch summary: Remove base of base from list of bases > >>> > > > >>> > > created a hash_set from list of bases and then iterate over each > >>> > > element of hash_set and find its list of bases and remove this from > >>> > > hash_set if present. > >>> > > and finally, deduction succeeds if in hash_set remains only single > >>> > > element or it's empty. > >>> > > otherwise deduction is ambiguous. > >>> > > >>> > Instead of building a hash table, would it work to handle ambiguity by > >>> > checking whether one of the classes is a base of the other? > > This is what I had in mind; it seems clearer to me. Do you see a reason > this wouldn't work? > > Also, I notice that you still don't seem to have a copyright assignment > on file with the FSF. I and Jonathan Wakely both asked about it last > year; has there been any progress on that? Your patch is too large to > go in without a copyright assignment, so it's probably simplest to go > ahead with mine. > > Thanks, > Jason
