[Bug c++/6273] [DR 502] Dependency of nested enumerations and enumerators

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6273

Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
   ||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com

--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Jason, I'm having a look to this, and I'm not sure there is still something to
do. For example, our type_dependent_type_p returns true for the snippet in 1)
of Core/502. As regards the reduced testcase in Comment #2 here, we still
reject it, as does clang too, but we accept (as does clang) it if we change
operator+ to be constexpr.

[Bug c++/6273] [DR 502] Dependency of nested enumerations and enumerators

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6273

--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
... of course I meant that dependent_type_p returns true for enum E therein.

[Bug c++/6273] [DR 502] Dependency of nested enumerations and enumerators

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6273

Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #18 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #16)
 Jason, I'm having a look to this, and I'm not sure there is still something
 to do.

I agree.  The template op+ is found by argument-dependent lookup.

[Bug c++/6273] [DR 502] Dependency of nested enumerations and enumerators

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6273

Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|SUSPENDED   |NEW
 CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |

--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-08-20 
10:51:47 UTC ---
Unsuspended.

[Bug c++/6273] [DR 502] Dependency of nested enumerations and enumerators

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6273

Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Known to work||
  Known to fail||

--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-05 
00:44:17 UTC ---
This should be unsuspended

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#502

[Bug c++/6273] [DR 502] Dependency of nested enumerations and enumerators

[reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-17 
20:03 ---
The code snippet from comment #4 is now accepted on the 4.0 branch
and mainline due to Mark's patch for PR21514:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg00996.html

The anonymous enum is again treated via SFINAE.


-- 
   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords|monitored   |
Summary|[4.0/4.1 regression] User-  |[DR 502] Dependency of
   |defined operator+ and use of|nested enumerations and
   |enum values in computation  |enumerators
   |of array bounds |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6273

[Bug c++/6273] [DR 502] Dependency of nested enumerations and enumerators

[reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-17 
20:27 ---
Here's a link to DR 502:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#502


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6273

[Bug c++/6273] [DR 502] Dependency of nested enumerations and enumerators

[gdr at integrable-solutions dot net]

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  
2005-09-17 20:29 ---
Subject: Re:  [DR 502] Dependency of nested enumerations and enumerators

reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

| The code snippet from comment #4 is now accepted on the 4.0 branch
| and mainline due to Mark's patch for PR21514:
| 
| http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg00996.html
| 
| The anonymous enum is again treated via SFINAE.

Notice however, that this is not a committee decision.  It is not 
clear at this moment whether linkage should play any role in SFNINAE
or not -- but the previous behaviour was just annoying.

-- Gaby


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6273