[Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51ecad3c0327418c6e20ef47c6c5a8015bb99b2c commit r10-7540-g51ecad3c0327418c6e20ef47c6c5a8015bb99b2c Author: Patrick Palka Date: Fri Apr 3 11:21:56 2020 -0400 c++: Add test for PR c++/93211 The fix for PR c++/90711 also fixed this PR. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR c++/93211 PR c++/90711 * g++.dg/template/koenig11.C: New test.
[Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for 9.4/10.
[Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0e66150084aa217811a5c45fb15e98d7ed3e8839 commit r9-8427-g0e66150084aa217811a5c45fb15e98d7ed3e8839 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Mon Mar 30 16:09:43 2020 -0400 c++: Fix comparison of fn() and ns::fn() [PR90711] The resolution of CWG issue 1321 clarified that when deciding whether two expressions involving template parameters are equivalent, two dependent function calls where the function is named with an unqualified-id are considered to be equivalent if the name is the same, even if unqualified lookup finds different sets of functions. We were wrongly treating qualified-ids the same way, so that EXISTS and test::EXISTS were considered to be equivalent even though they are looking up the name in different scopes. This also causes a mangling bug, but I don't think it's safe to fix that for GCC 10; this patch just fixes the comparison. gcc/cp/ChangeLog 2020-03-30 Jason Merrill PR c++/90711 * tree.c (cp_tree_equal) [CALL_EXPR]: Compare KOENIG_LOOKUP_P. (called_fns_equal): Check DECL_CONTEXT.
[Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5830f753559f25a5dabcc3507bffa611c6b575a6 commit r10-7465-g5830f753559f25a5dabcc3507bffa611c6b575a6 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Mon Mar 30 16:09:43 2020 -0400 c++: Fix comparison of fn() and ns::fn() [PR90711] The resolution of CWG issue 1321 clarified that when deciding whether two expressions involving template parameters are equivalent, two dependent function calls where the function is named with an unqualified-id are considered to be equivalent if the name is the same, even if unqualified lookup finds different sets of functions. We were wrongly treating qualified-ids the same way, so that EXISTS and test::EXISTS were considered to be equivalent even though they are looking up the name in different scopes. This also causes a mangling bug, but I don't think it's safe to fix that for GCC 10; this patch just fixes the comparison. gcc/cp/ChangeLog 2020-03-30 Jason Merrill PR c++/90711 * tree.c (cp_tree_equal) [CALL_EXPR]: Compare KOENIG_LOOKUP_P. (called_fns_equal): Check DECL_CONTEXT.
[Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 Target Milestone|--- |9.4 Known to work||8.3.0 Summary|Failing SFINAE from |[9/10 Regression] Failing |unrelated struct|SFINAE from unrelated ||struct since r9-6794 Known to fail||10.0, 9.3.0 Last reconfirmed||2020-03-23 CC||jason at redhat dot com, ||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka --- Confirmed. We started to reject the testcase in #c2 with r9-6794.
