On 09/07/2012 09:44 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/06/2012 06:29 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Ok, I did that in the below, also passes testing.
This patch is OK.
Great, applied.
In the meanwhile I looked a bit more into C++/24314 itself, and figured
out something, I'm attaching a draft-draft pa
On 09/06/2012 06:29 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Ok, I did that in the below, also passes testing.
This patch is OK.
Jason
Hi,
On 09/06/2012 07:47 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/06/2012 12:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 09/06/2012 02:03 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
but note that for:
template
struct A
{
int select() { return 0; }
};
we have parser->num_template_parameter_lists == 1 and num_templates ==
0. Thus
On 09/06/2012 12:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 09/06/2012 02:03 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
but note that for:
template
struct A
{
int select() { return 0; }
};
we have parser->num_template_parameter_lists == 1 and num_templates ==
0. Thus it seems that the case 'num_templates + 1' isn't (j
Hi,
On 09/06/2012 02:03 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
but note that for:
template
struct A
{
int select() { return 0; }
};
we have parser->num_template_parameter_lists == 1 and num_templates ==
0. Thus it seems that the case 'num_templates + 1' isn't (just) about
member templates...
That's o
On 09/05/2012 02:17 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
In fact, something seems weird earlier, in
cp_parser_check_template_parameters. It has:
/* If there are the same number of template classes and parameter
lists, that's OK. */
if (parser->num_template_parameter_lists == num_templates)
On 09/05/2012 06:52 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 09/05/2012 06:41 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Thanks for looking into this. Now I wonder if we made progress on a
couple of long standing PRs where we weren't strict enough by one
with the number of 'template <>'. Let me check...
Nope, apparently c++/
On 09/05/2012 06:41 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Thanks for looking into this. Now I wonder if we made progress on a
couple of long standing PRs where we weren't strict enough by one with
the number of 'template <>'. Let me check...
Nope, apparently c++/24314 is still there. But maybe it's easier to
Hi,
On 08/31/2012 11:32 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Since you're traveling, I poked at this myself some more. The issue
here is that there are too many template headers for the declaration,
so we want to figure out what the right number is and give an
appropriate message.
Tested x86_64-pc-linu
Since you're traveling, I poked at this myself some more. The issue
here is that there are too many template headers for the declaration, so
we want to figure out what the right number is and give an appropriate
message.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit 7c8fead9f721b04227
Hi again,
On 08/23/2012 05:53 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 08/23/2012 05:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/23/2012 10:04 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+if (decl
+&& TREE_CODE (decl) == VAR_DECL
+&& ! TYPE_P (CP_DECL_CONTEXT (decl)))
+ {
+error_at (decl_spec_token_start->location
On 08/23/2012 05:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/23/2012 10:04 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+if (decl
+&& TREE_CODE (decl) == VAR_DECL
+&& ! TYPE_P (CP_DECL_CONTEXT (decl)))
+ {
+error_at (decl_spec_token_start->location,
+ "%qT is not a template type", TREE_TYPE (dec
On 08/23/2012 10:04 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+if (decl
+ && TREE_CODE (decl) == VAR_DECL
+ && ! TYPE_P (CP_DECL_CONTEXT (decl)))
+ {
+ error_at (decl_spec_token_start->location,
+ "%qT is not a template type", TREE_TYPE (decl));
+ decl = error_mark
Hi,
here we want to reject meaningless things like:
template<> int i; // { dg-error "template" }
struct A
{
};
template<> A j; // { dg-error "template" }
It seems to me that a good place to do that is toward the end of
cp_parser_single_declaration, where we have only to be careful with
14 matches
Mail list logo
