Hi Jason, On 20 Jan 2025, at 22:50, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 1/4/25 10:13 AM, Simon Martin wrote: >> The invalid case in this PR trips on an assertion in >> build_class_member_access_expr that build_base_path would never >> return >> an error_mark_node, which is actually incorrect if the object >> involves a >> tree with an error_mark_node DECL_INITIAL, like here. >> >> This patch simply removes the assertion, even though it has been here >> for 22+ years (r0-44513-g50ad96428042fa). An alternative would be to >> assert that object != error_mark_node || seen_error (), but that'd be >> virtually not asserting anything IMO. > > That is an important difference: it asserts that if we run into > trouble, we've actually given an error message. Silently ignoring > error_mark_node frequently leads to wrong-code bugs. That makes sense, thanks for the context. > OK with that change. Thanks, applied as r15-7096-g4e4c378ac1f923. Simon
