From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-289041-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 24759 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2011 15:45:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 24731 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Apr 2011 15:45:29 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:45:16 +0000
Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p38FjGgF017476	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);	Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:45:16 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.3.113.14])	by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p38FjF7m016070;	Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:45:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4D9F2D8B.1010507@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:45:00 -0000
From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110307 Fedora/3.1.9-0.39.b3pre.fc14 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rodrigo Rivas <rodrigorivascosta@gmail.com>
CC: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>,        gcc-patches List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [C++0x] Range-based for statements and ADL
References: <AANLkTi=-PdaK2bni1d7ucHNNP2nSiDeJrnfET-ueaCvF@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTikxo7955t51av28NhGt4VhA89TyFE6WNPjd_eNE@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTinP2BzdG+fnO7n=5p+hvaU_VZ+-HyDLNn2Wy2J=@mail.gmail.com>	<4D8A2403.5050708@redhat.com>	<AANLkTimDRZ94xrA4OPziT7+X-bPK3xfAptTELFpVn-eR@mail.gmail.com>	<4D90A209.2020508@redhat.com>	<AANLkTintp7fzurBNiiOC+cmRoLt2CF9Q4SwSe04Y1AQa@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTimWyPccxiYbYG97H9Y6ddHVHFjv+RpgM14tmNyV@mail.gmail.com>	<4D94B85F.1030603@redhat.com>	<AANLkTik3T3Nd_28tL8+rOo0eZm2j4DATCP4u0OR9EGrK@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTikpO4a906wG5HG_Q4rw=oXqMjFPTnKtiHsDqAp7@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTiksTqVsCfuH1OL0N3snASCLdr14zw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTiksTqVsCfuH1OL0N3snASCLdr14zw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00645.txt.bz2

Looks good, just a couple of tweaks:

On 04/06/2011 07:22 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
> +         error ("range-based %<for%> expression must have complete type");
> +           error ("range-based %<for%> expression has an %<end%> member "
> +                  "but not a %<begin%>");

Let's give the type of the range initializer in these error messages.

> +static tree
> +cp_parser_range_for_member_function (tree range, tree identifier)
> +{
> +  tree member, instance, fn;
> +
> +  member = finish_class_member_access_expr (range, identifier,
> +                                           false, tf_warning_or_error);
> +  if (member == error_mark_node)
> +    return error_mark_node;
> +
> +  if (TREE_CODE (member) == COMPONENT_REF)
> +    {
> +      instance = TREE_OPERAND (member, 0);
> +      fn = TREE_OPERAND (member, 1);
> +    }
> +  else
> +    fn = NULL_TREE;
> +
> +  if (fn && BASELINK_P (fn))
> +    return build_new_method_call (instance, fn,
> +                                   NULL, NULL, LOOKUP_NORMAL,
> +                                   NULL, tf_warning_or_error);
> +  else
> +    {
> +      tree res;
> +      VEC(tree,gc) *vec;
> +
> +      vec = make_tree_vector ();
> +      res = finish_call_expr (member, &vec,
> +                              /*disallow_virtual=*/false,
> +                              /*koenig_p=*/false,
> +                              tf_warning_or_error);
> +      release_tree_vector (vec);
> +      return res;
> +    }
> +}

Instead of handling this difference here, let's teach finish_call_expr 
to handle a COMPONENT_REF around a BASELINK.

Jason