[Bug c++/17410] Specialization of nested template rejected because of unrelated declaration

[Bug c++/17410] Specialization of nested template rejected because of unrelated declaration

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-09-23 12:15 -------
Re-confirmed.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jason at redhat dot com,
                   |                            |mark at codesourcery dot com
      Known to fail|2.95.3 3.0.4 3.2.3 3.3.3    |2.95.3 3.0.4 3.2.3 3.3.3
                   |3.4.0 4.0.0 4.1.0           |3.4.0 4.0.0 4.1.0 4.3.0
   Last reconfirmed|2005-10-27 16:27:41         |2007-09-23 12:15:33
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17410

[Bug c++/17410] Specialization of nested template rejected because of unrelated declaration

[jason at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-03-05 16:08 -------
The bug is in lookup_template_class's search for a matching partial
instantiation; it finds Outer<void>::Inner<T*> and assumes it's
Outer<void>::Inner<T> without checking the innermost template args.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17410

[Bug c++/17410] Specialization of nested template rejected because of unrelated declaration

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17410

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
      Known to work|                            |4.8.0, 4.9.0
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> ---
Done.

[Bug c++/17410] Specialization of nested template rejected because of unrelated declaration

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17410

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org        |
      Known to fail|                            |

--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> ---
This has been fixed *long* time ago, in 4.5.x. To be safe I'm adding testcase
in Comment #2 before closing the bug.

[Bug c++/17410] Specialization of nested template rejected because of unrelated declaration

[cppljevans at cox-internet dot com]

------- Additional Comments From cppljevans at cox-internet dot com  2004-09-11 14:02 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> This is weird. Redux:
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> template <class>
> struct Outer {
>   template <class> struct Inner {};
> }; 
> 
> template <class T>
> struct A;
> 
> template <template <class> class Q, class P>
> struct A <Q<P> > {};
> 
> template <class T> struct UNRELATED;
> template <class T> struct UNRELATED<Outer<void>::Inner<T*> >;
> 
> template struct A<Outer<void>::Inner<int*> >;
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This should be accepted, because the specialization of A should be matched
> (with Q = "Outer<void>::Inner", and P = "int*" of course). Instead, it does 
> not, *unless* you comment the UNRELATED template.

My new attachment contains a run which shows gcc instantiates
the specialization when the template argument is not nested; 
however, gcc instantiates the general template when the template
argument is nested.  icc does it correctly.  I've also attached
the test.mk makefile which I used.

> 
> Looks like something gets alterated in the tsubst process. Not a regression, 
> though (the original code manages to be rejected everywhere, while the redux 
> even ICEs older compilers).



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17410