------- Comment #8 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-05-31 22:56 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] C++ error recovery regression
sabre at nondot dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #7 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-05-31 22:17 -------
> Ok, makes sense. The strategy that made sense to me was "If I see a
> definition
> for something that obviously has to be at global scope, but is defined inside
> of a function, pop all the way out to global scope and continue, there must be
> a missing }".
One could attempt that -- but it would be hard. It would also fall
afoul of code like this:
void f() {
void g() {} // Must be at global scope, but I didn't know that.
g();
}
which is likely to be another common error mode, since:
void f() {
void g();
g();
}
is valid.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26058
