Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 71169 ("[7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code in pop_nested_class"), PR 71832 and more

Hi again, On 07/03/2018 21:49, Paolo Carlini wrote: ... If you ask my opinion, at the moment I still believe that the best solution would be doing something at parsing time, save the information, in a more elegant way, maybe adding a special "erroneous TREE_VEC" flag to the TREE_VECs. I don't

Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 71169 ("[7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code in pop_nested_class"), PR 71832 and more

Hi, On 07/03/2018 21:23, Jason Merrill wrote: On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, [snip the various clarifications] Il 7 Marzo 2018 17:57:07 CET, Jason Merrill ha scritto: My thought was that this patch adds a lot of

Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 71169 ("[7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code in pop_nested_class"), PR 71832 and more

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi, > > [snip the various clarifications] > > Il 7 Marzo 2018 17:57:07 CET, Jason Merrill ha scritto: >>My thought was that this patch adds a lot of managing of the flag in >>different places in

Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 71169 ("[7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code in pop_nested_class"), PR 71832 and more

Hi, [snip the various clarifications] Il 7 Marzo 2018 17:57:07 CET, Jason Merrill ha scritto: >My thought was that this patch adds a lot of managing of the flag in >different places in the parser, whereas looking for error_mark_node in >the template parms here would be just

Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 71169 ("[7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code in pop_nested_class"), PR 71832 and more

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi, > > On 07/03/2018 16:38, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Paolo Carlini >> wrote: >>> >>> On 06/03/2018 21:33, Jason Merrill wrote: Interesting,

Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 71169 ("[7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code in pop_nested_class"), PR 71832 and more

Hi, On 07/03/2018 16:38, Jason Merrill wrote: On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: On 06/03/2018 21:33, Jason Merrill wrote: Interesting, that seems like a promising idea. I'm not sure we need to do this based on an error in a default template arg,

Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 71169 ("[7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code in pop_nested_class"), PR 71832 and more

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > On 06/03/2018 21:33, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> Interesting, that seems like a promising idea. I'm not sure we need >> to do this based on an error in a default template arg, though; can we >> drop >> >> + ||

Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 71169 ("[7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code in pop_nested_class"), PR 71832 and more

Hi, On 06/03/2018 21:33, Jason Merrill wrote: Interesting, that seems like a promising idea. I'm not sure we need to do this based on an error in a default template arg, though; can we drop + || error_operand_p (TREE_PURPOSE (parameter))) ? Good point, yes, I believe we can, isn't necessary

Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 71169 ("[7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code in pop_nested_class"), PR 71832 and more

Interesting, that seems like a promising idea. I'm not sure we need to do this based on an error in a default template arg, though; can we drop + || error_operand_p (TREE_PURPOSE (parameter))) ? Jason

Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 71169 ("[7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code in pop_nested_class"), PR 71832 and more

Hi again, On 06/03/2018 19:58, Paolo Carlini wrote: .. g, consider the patch withdrawn in its detailed form, I have a new testcase which add some random code after that ill-formed class and it's mishandled, it ICEs again. The below avoids the idiotic thinko (I added a testcase for that)

Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 71169 ("[7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code in pop_nested_class"), PR 71832 and more

.. g, consider the patch withdrawn in its detailed form, I have a new testcase which add some random code after that ill-formed class and it's mishandled, it ICEs again. Well, I would still appreciate some feedback about the general idea... Paolo.