[Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates

2014-02-16 Thread jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050

Jackie Rosen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jackie.rosen at hushmail dot 
com

--- Comment #17 from Jackie Rosen  ---
*** Bug 260998 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Seen from the domain http://volichat.com
Page where seen: http://volichat.com/adult-chat-rooms
Marked for reference. Resolved as fixed @bugzilla.

[Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates

2012-04-02 Thread schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050

--- Comment #16 from Johannes Schaub  
2012-04-02 07:43:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> 
> Good point, I've pointed out the problem with the proposed resolution.

Note that we currently have
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#581 open. 

Even when 12.1 would have allowed both the injected class name and it followed
by template-arguments, the name lookup rules would never allow it to match the
second condition because the injected class name would always have been
translated to a name denoting the constructor instead of the class.

So ultimately, 12.1 allowing the injected class name followed by template
arguments could only be used in an unqualified-id constructor declaration in
C++03.

[Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates

2012-04-01 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050

Jason Merrill  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Known to fail||

--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill  2012-04-02 
05:41:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)

Good point, I've pointed out the problem with the proposed resolution.

[Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates

2012-04-01 Thread schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050

--- Comment #14 from Johannes Schaub  
2012-04-01 14:14:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Jason, does http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1435
> not render the explicit specialization ill-formed for C++11TC1? It only allows
> a simple identifier, and not a template-id.

FWIW I don't like the resolution of that issue. For a qualified-id, the
injected-class-name is an excellent way for us to know when and when not we
name a constructor, and it is entirely based on name-lookup rules; I don't see
the need to dictate that in clause 12. Only for an unqualified-id, we actually
need the rule to know when we declare a constructor. The allowed
decl-specifiers in a constructor declaration can be stated separately.

[Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates

2012-04-01 Thread schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050

Johannes Schaub  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||schaub.johannes at
   ||googlemail dot com

--- Comment #13 from Johannes Schaub  
2012-04-01 14:03:40 UTC ---
Jason, does http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1435
not render the explicit specialization ill-formed for C++11TC1? It only allows
a simple identifier, and not a template-id.

[Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates

2009-11-20 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #12 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-11-21 06:34 ---
Fixed for 4.5.


-- 

jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050

[Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates

2009-11-20 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #11 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-11-21 06:34 ---
Subject: Bug 9050

Author: jason
Date: Sat Nov 21 06:33:56 2009
New Revision: 154403

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154403
Log:
PR c++/9050, DR 147, DR 318
* parser.c (cp_parser_lookup_name): If the name matches the explicit
class scope, we're naming the constructor.
(cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p): Just use cp_parser_unqualified_id
if we have a nested-name-specifier.
(cp_parser_direct_declarator): Handle getting an overload set as a
constructor declarator.
(cp_parser_unqualified_id): Avoid looking up the constructor when
naming the destructor.
(cp_parser_diagnose_invalid_type_name): Give good
diagnostic for improper use of constructor as template.
* typeck.c (finish_class_member_access_expr): Give good diagnostic
about calling constructor.

* error.c (dump_aggr_type): Don't print A::A for injected-class-name.

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/ctor9.C
Modified:
trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cp/error.c
trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c
trunk/gcc/cp/typeck.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/name-clash4.C
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tc1/dr147.C
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.jason/temporary5.C
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.pt/ctor2.C


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050

[Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates

2009-11-20 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 


-- 

jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Can't explicitly specialize |[DR 147] Can't explicitly
   |C++ constructor templates   |specialize C++ constructor
   ||templates
   Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050