Re: [Patch] PR c++/26256

[Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>]

On 09/21/2011 01:59 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>>           if (!DECL_DEPENDENT_P (field))
>>> -           continue;
>>> +           {
>>> +             tree using_decl = USING_DECL_DECLS (field);
>>> +             if ((TREE_CODE (using_decl) == FIELD_DECL
>>> +                  || TREE_CODE (using_decl) == TYPE_DECL)
>>> +&&  DECL_NAME (using_decl) == name)
>>> +               return using_decl;
>>> +             continue;
>>> +           }
>>
>> This section needs a comment.  Why do we look through USING_DECL for these
>> two kinds of member but not others?
>
> I was looking explicitely for a FIELD_DECL or a TYPE_DECL because it
> was crashing if I didn't. In fact, it was simply that DECL_NAME needs
> at least tree_minimal, which OVERLOAD doesn't have. Is there a way to
> properly check that DECL_NAME will succeed ?

You could check DECL_P first, but don't we want to return the OVERLOAD 
here, too?  You can use get_first_fn to get a FUNCTION_DECL out of 
anything that satisfies is_overloaded_fn.

Jason