Re: [patch] function eval cleanup

[sami wagiaalla <swagiaal@redhat.com>]

> You didn't mention how you tested this...
>

This was tested by running the test suit on Fedora 13 with gcc 4.4.4 on 
x8664.

> Sami>  +	  /* If this is a C++ function wait until overload resolution.  */
> Sami>  +	  if (overload_resolution
> Sami>  +	&&  (exp->language_defn->la_language == language_cplus))
> Sami>   	{
> Sami>  -	      for (; tem<= nargs&&  tem<= TYPE_NFIELDS (type); tem++)
> Sami>  +	      (*pos) += 4; /* Skip the evaluation of the symbol.  */
>
> Why is it ok to add 4 here?
> I think this assumes that the function in question is a symbol.
> But is that always the case?  What about something like calling via a
> function pointer?  Or some other more complicated subexpression?
>

In this particular location and if the language is C++ we are dealing 
with an OP_VAR_VALUE since all the other constructs were eliminated by 
the if else chain. So it is always a symbol, but I could add a check for 
OP_VAR_VALUE before skipping evaluation.

> If there is a failing case here, and it was not caught by the test
> suite, please also add a regression test.
>

No, no failing case. Just the FIXME by pai. It is kind of tricky to test 
because whatever symbol is evaluated here is replace by overload 
reslution and quietly re-evaluated.

It only causes problems when meta-symbol for templates is introduced as 
it is not meant to be evaluated see patch 2 of Template Lookup.