In r12-1273 for PR91706, I removed the code in get_class_binding that
stripped BASELINK. This testcase demonstrates that we still need to strip
it in outer_binding before putting the overload set in IDENTIFIER_BINDING,
for compatibility with bindings added directly for declarations.
PR c++/105908
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* name-lookup.cc (outer_binding): Strip BASELINK.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/trailing16.C: New test.
/* Thread this new class-scope binding onto the
IDENTIFIER_BINDING list so that future lookups
find it quickly. */
+ if (BASELINK_P (class_binding->value))
+ /* Don't put a BASELINK in IDENTIFIER_BINDING. */
+ class_binding->value
+ = BASELINK_FUNCTIONS (class_binding->value);
class_binding->previous = outer;
if (binding)
binding->previous = class_binding;
--- /dev/null
+// PR c++/105908
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct test
+{
+ template <typename T>
+ int templated_func();
+
+ template <typename T>
+ auto call_templated_func() -> decltype(templated_func<T>());
+};
+
+template <typename T>
+auto test::call_templated_func() -> decltype(templated_func<T>())
+{
+ return templated_func<T>();
+}