Agreed, I tend not to backport bugs on invalid code, definitely not if we already give a useful diagnostic.
Jason On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi again, > > On 12/04/2016 15:53, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> Let's go with the first patch. > > What about this one? Today I returned to it, and technically it still > represents a regression in gcc-4_9-branch and gcc-5-branch, but personally > I'd rather not backport the fix: in release-mode we just emit an additional > "confused by earlier errors, bailing out" at the end of a rather long series > of diagnostic messages, the first ones meaningful, the last redundant anyway > and the snippet triggering it seems particularly broken to me... > > Thanks, > Paolo. >
