On 1/12/24 03:48, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 07:40:19AM +0000, waffl3x wrote:
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux with no regressions.
I'm still getting used to things so let me know if the change log
entries are excessive, thanks.
From 9dc168e7bcbbd7d515fa28cb9cae28ec113fae0f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Waffl3x <waff...@protonmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:32:46 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] c++: reject packs on xobj params. [PR113307]
Reject and diagnose xobj parameters declared as parameter packs.
PR c++/113307
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* parser.cc (cp_parser_parameter_declaration): Reject packs
on xobj params.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp23/explicit-obj-diagnostics3.C: Add test for
rejection of packs.
Signed-off-by: Waffl3x <waff...@protonmail.com>
---
gcc/cp/parser.cc | 21 +++-
.../g++.dg/cpp23/explicit-obj-diagnostics3.C | 106 +++++++++++++++++-
2 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.cc b/gcc/cp/parser.cc
index 8ab98cc0c23..70fbba09bf8 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/parser.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/parser.cc
@@ -25706,6 +25706,25 @@ cp_parser_parameter_declaration (cp_parser *parser,
for a C-style variadic function. */
token = cp_lexer_peek_token (parser->lexer);
+ bool const xobj_param_p
+ = decl_spec_seq_has_spec_p (&decl_specifiers, ds_this);
+
+ if (xobj_param_p
+ && ((declarator && declarator->parameter_pack_p)
+ || cp_lexer_next_token_is (parser->lexer, CPP_ELLIPSIS)))
+ {
+ location_t xobj_param
+ = make_location (decl_specifiers.locations[ds_this],
+ decl_spec_token_start->location,
+ input_location);
+ error_at(xobj_param,
+ "an explicit object parameter cannot "
+ "be a function parameter pack");
Formatting - there should be space before ( and the following 2 lines
should be indented accordingly.
Will defer to Jason for the rest.
Pushed with that fixed, thanks.
Jason
