13, 2014 12:28 AM
To: 'Jason Merrill'; 'Jakub Jelinek'
Cc: 'GCC Patches (gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org)'; Iyer, Balaji V
Subject: RE: [PATCH, PR60189, Cilk+] Fix for ICE with incorrect Cilk_sync
usage
Ping. Should I prepare the patch?
Thanks,
Igor
-Original Message
From: Jason
On 05/20/14 08:10, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
Please look then on the following patch.
Regtested successfully on x86_64.
Is it ok for trunk and 4.9?
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
2014-05-20 Igor Zamyatin igor.zamya...@intel.com
PR c/60189
* parser.c (cp_parser_postfix_expression): Move handling of
+] Fix for ICE with incorrect
Cilk_sync usage
Oh, I see where the problem is coming from. Cilk_sync is a statement,
but it's being parsed as an expression. Let's move it to
cp_parser_statement.
Something like this (better to put new code in separate routine?)?
diff --git a/gcc/cp
From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 9:49 PM
To: Zamyatin, Igor; Jakub Jelinek
Cc: GCC Patches (gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org); Iyer, Balaji V
Subject: Re: [PATCH, PR60189, Cilk+] Fix for ICE with incorrect
Cilk_sync usage
Oh, I see where the problem
-Original Message-
From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 9:49 PM
To: Zamyatin, Igor; Jakub Jelinek
Cc: GCC Patches (gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org); Iyer, Balaji V
Subject: Re: [PATCH, PR60189, Cilk+] Fix for ICE with incorrect Cilk_sync
usage
Oh
-Original Message-
From: Jason Merrill [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 8:13 AM
To: Zamyatin, Igor; Jakub Jelinek
Cc: GCC Patches (gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org); Iyer, Balaji V
Subject: Re: [PATCH, PR60189, Cilk+] Fix for ICE with incorrect Cilk_sync
usage
Oh, I see where the problem is coming from. Cilk_sync is a statement,
but it's being parsed as an expression. Let's move it to
cp_parser_statement.
Jason
On 04/11/2014 03:08 PM, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
I remembered - I haven't used cp_parser_require since it calls
cp_lexer_consume_token which is not needed at this point. It is already called
a bit earlier.
So the call to cp_parser_require can replace that call as well.
Jason
On 04/10/2014 10:27 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I don't see the point of adding the extra {} around the whole case,
there is no variable declared at that point.
Agreed.
+ token = cp_lexer_peek_token (parser-lexer);
+ if (token-type != CPP_SEMICOLON)
+ {
+
+ token = cp_lexer_peek_token (parser-lexer);
+ if (token-type != CPP_SEMICOLON)
+ {
+ error_at (token-location, %_Cilk_sync% must be
followed
+ by semicolon);
+ postfix_expression =
+ token = cp_lexer_peek_token (parser-lexer);
+ if (token-type != CPP_SEMICOLON)
+ {
+ error_at (token-location, %_Cilk_sync% must be
followed
+ by semicolon);
+ postfix_expression =
Resending with correct Changelog
Is it OK?
Thanks,
Igor
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
2014-04-10 Igor Zamyatin igor.zamya...@intel.com
PR c++/60189
* parser.c (cp_parser_postfix_expression): Make sure only
semicolon can go after Cilk_sync.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2014-04-10 Igor Zamyatin
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 02:23:16PM +, Zamyatin, Igor wrote:
2014-04-10 Igor Zamyatin igor.zamya...@intel.com
PR c++/60189
* parser.c (cp_parser_postfix_expression): Make sure only
semicolon can go after Cilk_sync.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2014-04-10 Igor Zamyatin
13 matches
Mail list logo
