Re: [Patch] PR c++/26256

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

2011/9/22 Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>:
> On 09/22/2011 04:22 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>
>> I would have thought that we want to do something with OVERLOAD here,
>> in order to get rid of PR c++/30195 and c++/25994 (removing a wrong
>> diagnostic additionaly)... But those PRs are already fixed by this
>> patch without doing anything with OVERLOAD. Consequently, I don't
>> really know why it would be needed, but I can certainly do it if you
>> prefer. Have you got an example in mind where it would be needed ?
>
> 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.

> 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;
	    }
	}

Thanks,

-- 
Fabien