stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: STDCXX-1070
Date Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:21:28 GMT
On 09/26/2012 04:55 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
> On 9/25/12 7:56 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>> On 9/25/12 7:50 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 09/25/2012 02:46 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>>>> I filed 1070, failure to build 22.locale.collate.cpp on Linux with gcc
>>>> 4.7.1. Gcc, Comeau and Clang fail to compile it, Intel and Sun are
>>>> fine.
>>>> It looks to me like Intel and Sun compilers are not doing the right
>>>> thing. A small test case and a patch have been attached. The failing
>>>> code has been reduced to:
>>>
>>> I agree that the test case is ill-formed and requires a diagnostic.
>>>
>>> I haven't looked at the test so just to make sure the test case does
>>> reflect the problem there: the well-formedness depends on whether
>>> charT is a class type. If so, then the code would be okay because g()
>>> would be found via associated namespace lookup. I.e., this would be
>>> fine:
>>
>> Right. The test uses builtin types, therefore the argument-dependent
>> lookup does
>> not find g. The patch simply adds the declarations before the function
>> that uses
>> them.
>
> Clear to go ahead here?

You mean apply the patch attached to STDCXX-1070? It looks good
to me. I also checked the test. It's odd that the problem didn't
get caught sooner (we did get errors when the function templates
were declared static, which is why the static keyword is commented
out). But it sure does look like a problem.

FWIW, if you want quick input on a patch, I find it easier when
it's posted to the list (instead of attaching it to the issue).
Attaching it is useful when it's large and/or when you don't
have commit permissions. Others may have a different preference.

Martin

>
> Thanks,
> Liviu
>


Mime
View raw message