From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-374305-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23429 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2011 20:25:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 23409 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Nov 2011 20:25:29 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:25:16 +0000
From: "fabien at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/51188] invalid static_cast from type 'XBase' to type 'int'
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:58:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: fabien at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: fabien at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51188-4-AsJ4Xii6kl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51188-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51188-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg01801.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51188

--- Comment #6 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-11-17 20:24:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> It looks like the sorted fields code in lookup_field_1 needs to handle
> using_decl like the unsorted fields code does.  I think this will also fix
> PR51141 (instead of the patch you already posted).

Thanks, I'm current testing the below patch:

Index: class.c
===================================================================
--- class.c    (revision 181436)
+++ class.c    (working copy)
@@ -6000,7 +6000,7 @@ finish_struct_1 (tree t)
      hierarchy), and we want this failure to occur quickly.  */

   n_fields = count_fields (TYPE_FIELDS (t));
-  if (n_fields > 7)
+  if (n_fields > 0)
     {
       struct sorted_fields_type *field_vec = sorted_fields_type_new
(n_fields);
       add_fields_to_record_type (TYPE_FIELDS (t), field_vec, 0);
Index: search.c
===================================================================
--- search.c    (revision 181436)
+++ search.c    (working copy)
@@ -424,8 +424,9 @@ lookup_field_1 (tree type, tree name, bo
           if (want_type)
         {
           do
-            field = fields[i--];
+            field = strip_using_decl (fields[i--]);
           while (i >= lo && DECL_NAME (fields[i]) == name);
+
           if (TREE_CODE (field) != TYPE_DECL
               && !DECL_TYPE_TEMPLATE_P (field))
             field = NULL_TREE;
@@ -433,7 +434,7 @@ lookup_field_1 (tree type, tree name, bo
           else
         {
           do
-            field = fields[i++];
+            field = strip_using_decl (fields[i++]);
           while (i < hi && DECL_NAME (fields[i]) == name);
         }
           return field;