Giovanni Bajo wrote:
Mark,
- with your commit for PR 20142, you also committed a hunk to name-lookup.c
which is not described in the ChangeLog. It is also unclear whether it is
effectively need for that PR or not, but nonetheless it went in, so the entry
should probably be fixed.
Thanks for spotting that. It was a harmless, but, as far as I can tell,
spurious check-in. I tested that removing it caused no regression on
x86_64-linux-gnu, so I'm going to remove it. Patch below.
- It is unclear which patch fixed PR 19063, which patch fixed PR 13268, or if
the same patch fixed both.
The same patch fixed both. Part of the confusion here comes from the
fact that PR19063 contains references to a source file called PR13628.
I think that's part of how I got tangled.
* Both bugs were closed at the same time, but the ChangeLog entry does not
mention PR 19063.
That's confusing; I'll fix testsuite/ChangeLog to say 19063.
* In the testsuite, I cannot find a testcase for PR13268, I can only find a
testcase for PR 19063 (g++.dg/template/crash31.C), and the testcase is also
wrong (contains a typo, so it does not probably test what it was supposed to
test).
That was an intentional change. The test case in the PR:
template<operator> struct A {};
is confusing, since it looks like "operator" is a template argument. In
fact, the parser (correctly) sees that as "operator>" and there is no
closing ">" symbol.
If those bugs were duplicates, it should have probably be mentioned in both the
ChangeLog and the bug description; also one should be closed as duplicate of
the other, instead of simply marked as "fixed".
I don't think it makes sense to put duplicate information in ChangeLogs;
I find the fact that we put PR#s in ChangeLogs and testcases to be
redundant enough. :-) However, I do very much agree that I made a hash
of this, and that they should be marked as duplicates in Bugzilla.
So, to some up:
1. I reverted the name-lookup.c patch.
2. I changed testsuite/ChangeLog to say 19063.
3. I marked 13268 as a duplicate of 19063 in bugzilla.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(916) 791-8304
2005-08-05 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* name-lookup.c (pushtag): Remove accidental commit from:
2004-12-21 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c++/19063
* decl.c (grokdeclarator): Return error_mark_node, not
void_type_node, to indicate errors.
* parser.c (cp_parser_template_parameter_list): Robustify.
(cp_parser_template_parameter): Likewise.
Index: cp/name-lookup.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c,v
retrieving revision 1.133
diff -c -5 -p -r1.133 name-lookup.c
*** cp/name-lookup.c 1 Aug 2005 04:02:26 -0000 1.133
--- cp/name-lookup.c 5 Aug 2005 20:59:31 -0000
*************** pushtag (tree name, tree type, tag_scope
*** 4711,4723 ****
pushdecl_class_level (d);
}
else if (b->kind != sk_template_parms)
d = pushdecl_with_scope (d, b);
- if (d == error_mark_node)
- POP_TIMEVAR_AND_RETURN (TV_NAME_LOOKUP, error_mark_node);
-
TYPE_CONTEXT (type) = DECL_CONTEXT (d);
/* If this is a local class, keep track of it. We need this
information for name-mangling, and so that it is possible to find
all function definitions in a translation unit in a convenient
--- 4711,4720 ----
