* [Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794
[not found] <bug-90711-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2020-03-23 17:50 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-27 21:44 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-23 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711
Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
Known to work| |8.3.0
Summary|Failing SFINAE from |[9/10 Regression] Failing
|unrelated struct |SFINAE from unrelated
| |struct since r9-6794
Known to fail| |10.0, 9.3.0
Last reconfirmed| |2020-03-23
CC| |jason at redhat dot com,
| |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed. We started to reject the testcase in #c2 with r9-6794.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794
[not found] <bug-90711-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-03-23 17:50 ` [Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794 ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-03-27 21:44 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-30 21:16 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jason at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-27 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711
Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794
[not found] <bug-90711-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-03-23 17:50 ` [Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794 ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-27 21:44 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-03-30 21:16 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-31 17:04 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-30 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill <jason@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5830f753559f25a5dabcc3507bffa611c6b575a6
commit r10-7465-g5830f753559f25a5dabcc3507bffa611c6b575a6
Author: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Mar 30 16:09:43 2020 -0400
c++: Fix comparison of fn() and ns::fn() [PR90711]
The resolution of CWG issue 1321 clarified that when deciding whether two
expressions involving template parameters are equivalent, two dependent
function calls where the function is named with an unqualified-id are
considered to be equivalent if the name is the same, even if unqualified
lookup finds different sets of functions. We were wrongly treating
qualified-ids the same way, so that EXISTS and test::EXISTS were considered
to be equivalent even though they are looking up the name in different
scopes. This also causes a mangling bug, but I don't think it's safe to
fix
that for GCC 10; this patch just fixes the comparison.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog
2020-03-30 Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
PR c++/90711
* tree.c (cp_tree_equal) [CALL_EXPR]: Compare KOENIG_LOOKUP_P.
(called_fns_equal): Check DECL_CONTEXT.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794
[not found] <bug-90711-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-03-30 21:16 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-03-31 17:04 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-03-31 17:47 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-03 15:30 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-31 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill
<jason@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0e66150084aa217811a5c45fb15e98d7ed3e8839
commit r9-8427-g0e66150084aa217811a5c45fb15e98d7ed3e8839
Author: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Mar 30 16:09:43 2020 -0400
c++: Fix comparison of fn() and ns::fn() [PR90711]
The resolution of CWG issue 1321 clarified that when deciding whether two
expressions involving template parameters are equivalent, two dependent
function calls where the function is named with an unqualified-id are
considered to be equivalent if the name is the same, even if unqualified
lookup finds different sets of functions. We were wrongly treating
qualified-ids the same way, so that EXISTS and test::EXISTS were considered
to be equivalent even though they are looking up the name in different
scopes. This also causes a mangling bug, but I don't think it's safe to
fix
that for GCC 10; this patch just fixes the comparison.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog
2020-03-30 Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
PR c++/90711
* tree.c (cp_tree_equal) [CALL_EXPR]: Compare KOENIG_LOOKUP_P.
(called_fns_equal): Check DECL_CONTEXT.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794
[not found] <bug-90711-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-03-31 17:04 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-03-31 17:47 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-03 15:30 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jason at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-31 17:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711
Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for 9.4/10.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/90711] [9/10 Regression] Failing SFINAE from unrelated struct since r9-6794
[not found] <bug-90711-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2020-03-31 17:47 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-03 15:30 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-03 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90711
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka <ppalka@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51ecad3c0327418c6e20ef47c6c5a8015bb99b2c
commit r10-7540-g51ecad3c0327418c6e20ef47c6c5a8015bb99b2c
Author: Patrick Palka <ppalka@redhat.com>
Date: Fri Apr 3 11:21:56 2020 -0400
c++: Add test for PR c++/93211
The fix for PR c++/90711 also fixed this PR.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR c++/93211
PR c++/90711
* g++.dg/template/koenig11.C: New test.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread