Re: [Patch] PR c++/26256

["Fabien Chêne" <fabien.chene@gmail.com>]

2011/9/23 Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>:
> On 09/22/2011 05:11 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>
>> 2011/9/22 Jason Merrill<jason@redhat.com>:
>
>>> I don't, it just seemed strange to handle functions differently from
>>> other
>>> decls here.  But when I look more closely I see that we're in
>>> lookup_field_1, which isn't interested in functions, so I guess we do
>>> want
>>> to ignore function using-declarations here.
>>
>> That's strange because if we do return FUNCTION_DECL, PR c++/30195 seems
>> solved.
>
> It works for that testcase, but we need to handle functions in
> lookup_fnfields_1 since it's also called from other places.

Aha, hence, I'll tackle this issue in another patch, one PR at a time !

>>> But check for is_overloaded_fn rather than just OVERLOAD.  Also, it looks
>>> like the new code doesn't respect want_type.
>>
>> Er, I'm a bit lost, do you mean something like that ?
>>
>> if (TREE_CODE (field) == USING_DECL)
>>        {
>>          tree target_field = strip_using_decl (field);
>>          if (target_field != field)
>>            {
>>              if (DECL_P (target_field)&&  DECL_NAME (target_field) == name
>>                  || (is_overloaded_fn (target_field)
>>                &&  DECL_NAME (get_first_fn (target_field)) == name))
>>                {
>>                  if (!want_type
>>                      || TREE_CODE (target_field) == TYPE_DECL)
>>                    return target_field;
>>                }
>>
>>              continue;
>>            }
>>        }
>
> I was thinking more like
>
> tree decl = field;
> if (TREE_CODE (decl) == USING_DECL)
>  {
>    decl = strip_using_decl (decl);
>    if (is_overloaded_fn (decl)) continue;
>  }
> if (DECL_NAME (decl) == name
>  ...

I should have got it... Thank you anyway.
I will update the patch accordingly at the begining of the next week, I hope.

-- 
Fabien