public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates
[not found] <bug-9050-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2012-04-01 14:06 ` schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
2012-04-01 14:15 ` schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com @ 2012-04-01 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050
Johannes Schaub <schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |schaub.johannes at
| |googlemail dot com
--- Comment #13 from Johannes Schaub <schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com> 2012-04-01 14:03:40 UTC ---
Jason, does http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1435
not render the explicit specialization ill-formed for C++11TC1? It only allows
a simple identifier, and not a template-id.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates
[not found] <bug-9050-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2012-04-01 14:06 ` [Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
@ 2012-04-01 14:15 ` schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
2012-04-02 5:43 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com @ 2012-04-01 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050
--- Comment #14 from Johannes Schaub <schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com> 2012-04-01 14:14:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Jason, does http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1435
> not render the explicit specialization ill-formed for C++11TC1? It only allows
> a simple identifier, and not a template-id.
FWIW I don't like the resolution of that issue. For a qualified-id, the
injected-class-name is an excellent way for us to know when and when not we
name a constructor, and it is entirely based on name-lookup rules; I don't see
the need to dictate that in clause 12. Only for an unqualified-id, we actually
need the rule to know when we declare a constructor. The allowed
decl-specifiers in a constructor declaration can be stated separately.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates
[not found] <bug-9050-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2012-04-01 14:06 ` [Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
2012-04-01 14:15 ` schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
@ 2012-04-02 5:43 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-02 7:45 ` schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
2014-02-16 13:16 ` jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: jason at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-04-02 5:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050
Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to fail| |
--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-02 05:41:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Good point, I've pointed out the problem with the proposed resolution.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates
[not found] <bug-9050-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-02 5:43 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-04-02 7:45 ` schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
2014-02-16 13:16 ` jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com @ 2012-04-02 7:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050
--- Comment #16 from Johannes Schaub <schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com> 2012-04-02 07:43:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
>
> Good point, I've pointed out the problem with the proposed resolution.
Note that we currently have
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#581 open.
Even when 12.1 would have allowed both the injected class name and it followed
by template-arguments, the name lookup rules would never allow it to match the
second condition because the injected class name would always have been
translated to a name denoting the constructor instead of the class.
So ultimately, 12.1 allowing the injected class name followed by template
arguments could only be used in an unqualified-id constructor declaration in
C++03.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates
[not found] <bug-9050-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-04-02 7:45 ` schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
@ 2014-02-16 13:16 ` jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com
4 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com @ 2014-02-16 13:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050
Jackie Rosen <jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com
--- Comment #17 from Jackie Rosen <jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com> ---
*** Bug 260998 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Seen from the domain http://volichat.com
Page where seen: http://volichat.com/adult-chat-rooms
Marked for reference. Resolved as fixed @bugzilla.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates
[not found] <bug-9050-2393@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2009-11-21 3:19 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-11-21 6:34 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-11-21 6:34 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: jason at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-11-21 6:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-21 06:34 -------
Subject: Bug 9050
Author: jason
Date: Sat Nov 21 06:33:56 2009
New Revision: 154403
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=154403
Log:
PR c++/9050, DR 147, DR 318
* parser.c (cp_parser_lookup_name): If the name matches the explicit
class scope, we're naming the constructor.
(cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p): Just use cp_parser_unqualified_id
if we have a nested-name-specifier.
(cp_parser_direct_declarator): Handle getting an overload set as a
constructor declarator.
(cp_parser_unqualified_id): Avoid looking up the constructor when
naming the destructor.
(cp_parser_diagnose_invalid_type_name): Give good
diagnostic for improper use of constructor as template.
* typeck.c (finish_class_member_access_expr): Give good diagnostic
about calling constructor.
* error.c (dump_aggr_type): Don't print A::A for injected-class-name.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/ctor9.C
Modified:
trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cp/error.c
trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c
trunk/gcc/cp/typeck.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/lookup/name-clash4.C
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tc1/dr147.C
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.jason/temporary5.C
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.pt/ctor2.C
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates
[not found] <bug-9050-2393@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2009-11-21 3:19 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-11-21 6:34 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-11-21 6:34 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: jason at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-11-21 6:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-21 06:34 -------
Fixed for 4.5.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates
[not found] <bug-9050-2393@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2009-11-21 3:19 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-11-21 6:34 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-11-21 6:34 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: jason at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-11-21 3:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|Can't explicitly specialize |[DR 147] Can't explicitly
|C++ constructor templates |specialize C++ constructor
| |templates
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9050
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-02-16 13:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-9050-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2012-04-01 14:06 ` [Bug c++/9050] [DR 147] Can't explicitly specialize C++ constructor templates schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
2012-04-01 14:15 ` schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
2012-04-02 5:43 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-04-02 7:45 ` schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com
2014-02-16 13:16 ` jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com
[not found] <bug-9050-2393@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2009-11-21 3:19 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-11-21 6:34 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-11-21 6:34 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).