From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5945 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2007 10:53:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 5936 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2007 10:53:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:53:10 +0000 Received: from zps19.corp.google.com (zps19.corp.google.com [172.25.146.19]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id lAUAr7kp031629 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:53:07 -0800 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (pyia25.prod.google.com [10.34.253.25]) by zps19.corp.google.com with ESMTP id lAUAq7Qh025330 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:53:07 -0800 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a25so4693911pyi for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:53:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.35.44.16 with SMTP id w16mr1585061pyj.1196419986401; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:53:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.35.106.4 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:53:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <65dd6fd50711300253n7194aaabqd98bb89bdce25a24@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:00:00 -0000 From: "Ollie Wild" To: "Mark Mitchell" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/8171: Comparing pointer-to-member-functions of derived classes Cc: "Volker Reichelt" , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <4737AD61.9020702@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <4737AD61.9020702@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg01704.txt.bz2 On Nov 11, 2007 5:33 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > How do we get a METHOD_TYPE down into comptypes? Did we start with a > pointer-to-member function type, and then pull the METHOD_TYPE out of that? I was digging through bugzilla and noticed that I've also submitted a patch that fixes the same problem (See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg01544.html.). My patch is quite a bit simpler than this one, and it passes both of this patch's tests (except the error generated on line 18 of ptrmemfun2.C reads as "error: comparison between distinct pointer-to-member types 'void (B::*)()' and 'void (C::*)()' lacks a cast"). I'll let Mark decide which fix he thinks is preferable. Sorry for stepping on toes here. Ollie