From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Martin von Loewis <martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
To: hjl@lucon.org
Cc: loewis@informatik.hu-berlin.de, egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: An OVL_CURRENT patch?
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 02:05:00 -0000
Message-id: <199805100656.IAA00362@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
References: <m0yYK6V-000268C@ocean.lucon.org>
X-SW-Source: 1998-05/msg00351.html

> Does this patch make any sense? 

When accessing the name of an overloaded function, you really want the
name of first function. So yes, the patch looks OK.

> Should we check all usages of TREE_VEC_ELT to see if OVL_CURRENT is
> needed?

There should be test cases for each change we make. I've included test
cases for your changes below.

Regards,
Martin

----------------------------------------------------------------
// Build don't link:
struct X{
  void f();        
};

struct Y:X{
  void f(int);
  void f();
  using X::f;       // ERROR - conflict
};                  // ERROR -
----------------------------------------------------------------
//Build don't link:
struct X{
  void i();     // ERROR -
  void i(int);
  int i;        // ERROR - conflict
};
----------------------------------------------------------------
// Build don't link:
struct A{
  A();
};

typedef struct {
  A i;
} S;

struct B: S{
  using S::S;        // ERROR - no such field
};