Hi,
and, first, thanks a lot for all the nice work and help on these issues!
On 07/13/2012 12:55 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.c b/gcc/cp/pt.c
index fec88eb..95c6464 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
@@ -8334,7 +8334,7 @@ apply_late_template_attributes (tree *decl_p, tree
attributes, int attr_flags,
/* Perform (or defer) access check for typedefs that were referenced
from within the template TMPL code.
- This is a subroutine of instantiate_template and instantiate_class_template.
+ This is a subroutine of instantiate_decl and instantiate_class_template.
TMPL is the template to consider and TARGS is the list of arguments of
that template. */
@@ -14380,12 +14380,6 @@ instantiate_template_1 (tree tmpl, tree orig_args, tsubst_flags_t complain)
/* Now we know the specialization, compute access previously
deferred. */
push_access_scope (fndecl);
-
- /* Some typedefs referenced from within the template code need to be access
- checked at template instantiation time, i.e now. These types were
- added to the template at parsing time. Let's get those and perfom
- the acces checks then. */
- perform_typedefs_access_check (DECL_TEMPLATE_RESULT (tmpl), targ_ptr);
perform_deferred_access_checks ();
pop_access_scope (fndecl);
pop_deferring_access_checks ();
@@ -18395,6 +18389,13 @@ instantiate_decl (tree d, int defer_ok,
/* Set up context. */
start_preparsed_function (d, NULL_TREE, SF_PRE_PARSED);
+ /* Some typedefs referenced from within the template code need to be
+ access checked at template instantiation time, i.e now. These
+ types were added to the template at parsing time. Let's get those
+ and perform the access checks then. */
+ perform_typedefs_access_check (DECL_TEMPLATE_RESULT (gen_tmpl),
+ gen_args);
+
I'm working on integrating again my work.
The above change of yours appear to imply that, at variance with what I
had in my first draft, perform_typedefs_access_check shouldn't really
gain a tsubst_flags_t argument, because now it's called by
instantiate_decl and instantiate_class_template_1 (from which I was
passing a true / tf_error). Makes sense?
Thanks!
Paolo.
