Ping. I'm getting more reports of this bug internally, and it would be nice to have the fix upstream.
-cary On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Cary Coutant <ccout...@google.com> wrote: > 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 >>
