On Friday, 19 November 2021 23:26:57 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 11/19/21 04:53, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > On Thursday, 18 November 2021 20:24:36 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> On 11/17/21 17:51, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > __FUNCTION__ was 'fun' all the time, but __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ was
> >
On Friday, 19 November 2021 23:26:57 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 11/19/21 04:53, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > My motivation for printing a function template specialization differently
> > is:
> >
> > 1. It's a different function definition that's being called. The user
> > (caller) might be surpris
On 11/19/21 04:53, Matthias Kretz wrote:
On Thursday, 18 November 2021 20:24:36 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/17/21 17:51, Matthias Kretz wrote:
Right, I had already added a `gcc_assert (!TMPL_ARGS_HAVE_MULTIPLE_LEVELS
(args))` to my new set_non_default_template_args_count function and found
c
On Friday, 19 November 2021 10:53:27 CET Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > >> Ah, you're trying to omit defaulted parms from the ? I'm not
> > >> sure
> > >> that's necessary, leaving them out of the [with ...] list should be
> > >> sufficient.
> > >
> > > I was thinking about all the std::allocator defau
On Thursday, 18 November 2021 20:24:36 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 11/17/21 17:51, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > Right, I had already added a `gcc_assert (!TMPL_ARGS_HAVE_MULTIPLE_LEVELS
> > (args))` to my new set_non_default_template_args_count function and found
> > cp/ constraint.cc:2896 (get_mapp
On 11/17/21 17:51, Matthias Kretz wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 19:25:46 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/17/21 04:04, Matthias Kretz wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 07:09:18 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
- if (CHECKING_P)
-SET_NON_DEFAULT_TEMPLATE_ARGS_COUNT (a, TREE_VEC_LENGTH (a
On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 19:25:46 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 11/17/21 04:04, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 07:09:18 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>> - if (CHECKING_P)
> >>> -SET_NON_DEFAULT_TEMPLATE_ARGS_COUNT (a, TREE_VEC_LENGTH (a));
> >>> + SET_NON_DEFAULT
On 11/17/21 04:04, Matthias Kretz wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 07:09:18 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
- if (CHECKING_P)
-SET_NON_DEFAULT_TEMPLATE_ARGS_COUNT (a, TREE_VEC_LENGTH (a));
+ SET_NON_DEFAULT_TEMPLATE_ARGS_COUNT (a, nondefault);
should have been
if (CHECKING_P || nondefault
On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 07:09:18 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
> > - if (CHECKING_P)
> > -SET_NON_DEFAULT_TEMPLATE_ARGS_COUNT (a, TREE_VEC_LENGTH (a));
> > + SET_NON_DEFAULT_TEMPLATE_ARGS_COUNT (a, nondefault);
>
> should have been
>
> if (CHECKING_P || nondefault != TREE_VEC_LENGTH (a))
On 11/8/21 11:40, Matthias Kretz wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 20:31:54 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
2. Given a DECL_TI_ARGS tree, can I query whether an argument was deduced
or explicitly specified? I'm asking because I still consider diagnostics
of function templates unfortunate. `template vo
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 21:49:31 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 11/16/21 15:42, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 21:25:33 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> On 11/8/21 15:00, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> >>> I forgot to mention why I tagged it [RFC]: I needed one more bit of
> >>> i
On 11/16/21 15:42, Matthias Kretz wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 21:25:33 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/8/21 15:00, Matthias Kretz wrote:
I forgot to mention why I tagged it [RFC]: I needed one more bit of
information on the template args TREE_VEC to encode
EXPLICIT_TEMPLATE_ARGS_P. Its T
On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 21:25:33 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 11/8/21 15:00, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > I forgot to mention why I tagged it [RFC]: I needed one more bit of
> > information on the template args TREE_VEC to encode
> > EXPLICIT_TEMPLATE_ARGS_P. Its TREE_CHAIN already points to an
On 11/8/21 15:00, Matthias Kretz wrote:
I forgot to mention why I tagged it [RFC]: I needed one more bit of
information on the template args TREE_VEC to encode EXPLICIT_TEMPLATE_ARGS_P.
Its TREE_CHAIN already points to an integer constant denoting the number of
non-default arguments, so I couldn'
I forgot to mention why I tagged it [RFC]: I needed one more bit of
information on the template args TREE_VEC to encode EXPLICIT_TEMPLATE_ARGS_P.
Its TREE_CHAIN already points to an integer constant denoting the number of
non-default arguments, so I couldn't trivially replace that. Therefore, I
On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 20:31:54 CET Jason Merrill wrote:
> > 2. Given a DECL_TI_ARGS tree, can I query whether an argument was deduced
> > or explicitly specified? I'm asking because I still consider diagnostics
> > of function templates unfortunate. `template void f()` is fine,
> > as is `voi
On 7/23/21 4:58 AM, Matthias Kretz wrote:
Hi Jason,
I found a few regressions from the last patch in the meantime. Version 4 of
the patch is attached.
Questions:
1. I simplified the condition for calling dump_template_parms in
dump_function_name. !DECL_FRIEND_PSEUDO_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATION (t)
On 7/23/21 4:58 AM, Matthias Kretz wrote:
Hi Jason,
Hi, thanks for your patience; I've been out on PTO a lot in the last
month, and will be again this week.
I found a few regressions from the last patch in the meantime. Version 4 of
the patch is attached.
Questions:
1. I simplified the co
Hi Jason,
I found a few regressions from the last patch in the meantime. Version 4 of
the patch is attached.
Questions:
1. I simplified the condition for calling dump_template_parms in
dump_function_name. !DECL_FRIEND_PSEUDO_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATION (t) is
equivalent to DECL_USE_TEMPLATE (t) in
19 matches
Mail list logo
