From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 3E43C3858438; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:24:12 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3E43C3858438 From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/54948] template unnecessarily displayed as "A< template-parameter-1-1 >" not "A" Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:24:12 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: see_also Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:24:12 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D54948 Jonathan Wakely changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill | |a/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104094 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- This continues to be annoying. Libstdc++ has loads of forward declarations = of templates, e.g. in : // Forward declarations template struct is_reference; template struct is_function; template struct is_void; template struct remove_cv; template struct is_const; Which means we then get diagnostics containing: std::is_same<_U1, typename std::remove_cv< >::type= &> I agree with Manu that this could just show "typename" here. We don't refer= to the template-parameter-1-1 type again in the diagnostic, so why do we care about uniquely identifying it as 1-1? But why is it even using the name from the remove_cv declaration? That shou= ld not be appearing in the *use* of remove_cv here. I've filed that as PR 1040= 94.=