On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 13:15 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:29 PM, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > Here's a version of the patch which simply tweaks
> > cp_parser_primary_expression's call to finish_id_expression so that
> > it passes the location of the id_expression, rather than that of
> > id_expr_token.
> >
> > The id_expression in question came from cp_parser_id_expression,
> > whereas the id_expr_token is the first token within the id
> > -expression.
> >
> > The location passed here to finish_id_expression only affects:
> > the location used for name-lookup errors, and for the resulting
> > decl cp_expr. Given that the following code immediately does this:
> > decl.set_location (id_expr_token->location);
>
> What happens if we use id_expression.get_location() here, too?
>
> OK.
With that other change it bootstraps but introduces some regressions:
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51420.C -std=c++11 (test for errors, line 6)
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51420.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors)
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51420.C -std=c++14 (test for errors, line 6)
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51420.C -std=c++14 (test for excess errors)
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-declare-neg.C -std=c++11 (test for errors,
line 11)
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-declare-neg.C -std=c++11 (test for errors,
line 14)
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-declare-neg.C -std=c++11 (test for errors,
line 5)
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-declare-neg.C -std=c++11 (test for errors,
line 8)
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-declare-neg.C -std=c++11 (test for excess
errors)
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-declare-neg.C -std=c++14 (test for errors,
line 11)
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-declare-neg.C -std=c++14 (test for errors,
line 14)
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-declare-neg.C -std=c++14 (test for errors,
line 5)
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-declare-neg.C -std=c++14 (test for errors,
line 8)
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-declare-neg.C -std=c++14 (test for excess
errors)
It would change:
g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51420.C: In function ‘void foo()’:
g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51420.C:6:13: error: ‘operator""_F’ was not declared in this
scope
float x = operator"" _F(); // { dg-error "13:'operator\"\"_F' was not
declared in this scope" }
^~~~~~~~
g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51420.C:6:13: note: suggested alternative: ‘operator new’
float x = operator"" _F(); // { dg-error "13:'operator\"\"_F' was not
declared in this scope" }
^~~~~~~~
operator new
to:
g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51420.C: In function ‘void foo()’:
g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51420.C:6:27: error: ‘operator""_F’ was not declared in this
scope
float x = operator"" _F(); // { dg-error "13:'operator\"\"_F' was not
declared in this scope" }
^
and would change:
g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-declare-neg.C:5:9: error: ‘operator""_Bar’ was not declared
in this scope
int i = operator"" _Bar('x'); // { dg-error "9:'operator\"\"_Bar' was not
declared in this scope" }
^~~~~~~~
g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-declare-neg.C:5:9: note: suggested alternative: ‘operator
new’
int i = operator"" _Bar('x'); // { dg-error "9:'operator\"\"_Bar' was not
declared in this scope" }
^~~~~~~~
operator new
to:
g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-declare-neg.C:5:28: error: ‘operator""_Bar’ was not declared
in this scope
int i = operator"" _Bar('x'); // { dg-error "9:'operator\"\"_Bar' was not
declared in this scope" }
^
(DejaGnu picked up on this via the changing column numbers, but it
didn't detect the missing "suggested alternative").
With the patch I posted as-is, we get:
g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51420.C:6:13: error: ‘operator""_F’ was not declared in this
scope
float x = operator"" _F(); // { dg-error "13:'operator\"\"_F' was not
declared in this scope" }
^~~~~~~~
and:
g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-declare-neg.C:5:9: error: ‘operator""_Bar’ was not declared
in this scope
int i = operator"" _Bar('x'); // { dg-error "9:'operator\"\"_Bar' was not
declared in this scope" }
^~~~~~~~
i.e. the same locations as the status quo, but dropping the suggested
"operator new" hint.
Is the patch still OK as-is?
Dave
