From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-289382-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25135 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2011 13:46:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 25127 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2011 13:46:23 -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; Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:46:15 +0000
Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3DDkEdK008383	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);	Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:46:15 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.3.113.3])	by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3DDkDJU008554;	Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:46:14 -0400
Message-ID: <4DA5A925.5060806@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:46:00 -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>	<4D9F2D8B.1010507@redhat.com> <BANLkTinL+RDJwYK0xuYzB7mw8uf0uuYXrQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinL+RDJwYK0xuYzB7mw8uf0uuYXrQ@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/msg00986.txt.bz2

On 04/11/2011 04:50 PM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
> Because the type of the expression must have complete type *only* if
> it is an array.

Actually, if it has class type, it must also have a complete type or the 
class member lookup is ill-formed.  And you can't pass an expression of 
void type to a function call.  So we can just unconditionally require a 
complete type.

> Well, I just did that, but I'm not sure this is totally correct, I've
> just begun to understand finish_call_expr. It works, if only because
> I'm the only one using this new code path. Fell free to
> revise/change/comment about it.

It looks fine.

> +                                        ? LOOKUP_NONVIRTUAL : 0),

Except this should be ? LOOKUP_NORMAL|LOOKUP_NORVIRTUAL : LOOKUP_NORMAL. 
  The other calls to build_new_method_call here should be fixed that 
way, too.

Jason