Ping. Jason, do you still think the special-case for conversion ops is inappropriate?
-cary On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Pedro Alves <pal...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 07/24/2014 11:35 PM, Cary Coutant wrote: >>> It seems that the problem here is more general; a template argument list is >>> not in scope within that same template argument list. Can't we fix that >>> without special-casing conversion ops? >> >> I think conversion ops really are a special case. > > Thanks Cary. FWIW, I agree. > > (GDB 7.8 hasn't been released yet, though it's close. If this > patch is approved as is, we'll be able to have the crash > fixed there. If this requires a significant rewrite though, > I'm afraid I might not be able to do it myself anytime soon.) > >> It's the only case >> where the template parameters refer to the template argument list from >> the cast operator's enclosing template. In a cast expression, like >> anywhere else you might have a template parameter, the template >> parameter refers to the template argument list of the immediately >> enclosing template. >> >> I think this note from Section 5.1.3 (Operator Encodings) of the ABI >> is what makes this a special case (it's an informative comment in the >> document, but seems to me to be normative): >> >> "For a user-defined conversion operator the result type (i.e., the >> type to which the operator converts) is part of the mangled name of >> the function. If the conversion operator is a member template, the >> result type will appear before the template parameters. There may be >> forward references in the result type to the template parameters." >> > > -- > Thanks, > Pedro Alves >