> > > You need a template testcase; I expect it doesn't work in templates with > > > the > > > current patch. It's probably enough to copy it in tsubst_expr where we > > > currently propagate CALL_EXPR_OPERATOR_SYNTAX. > > > > I tried it with the appended test case, everything seems to work without > > changes. > > > > Does it cover the cases you were concerned about? > > Not fully; this testcase doesn't seem to check for errors if tail-call > fails, only whether the syntax is accepted. So it would pass if the > attribute were simply ignored.
Okay I'm not clear how I would do that. Pattern match the assembler in a target specific test case? From looking at the assembler output everything got tail converted. > > Did you also see this comment? > > > It seems to me that if we were to pass &std_attrs to > > cp_parser_jump_statement, we could handle this entirely in that function > > rather than adding a flag to finish_return_stmt and check_return_stmt. Yes. I did that change. -Andi
