[Bug c++/77914] Wrong lambda definition accepted

2022-12-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0

[Bug c++/77914] Wrong lambda definition accepted

2017-01-25 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/77914] Wrong lambda definition accepted

2017-01-25 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Jan 25 20:51:10 2017 New Revision: 244907 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244907&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/77914 * parser.c (cp_parser_lambda_declarator_opt):

[Bug c++/77914] Wrong lambda definition accepted

2017-01-25 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914 --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > Created attachment 40578 [details] > gcc7-pr77914.patch > > So like this (untested)? Looks good.

[Bug c++/77914] Wrong lambda definition accepted

2017-01-25 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 40578 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40578&action=edit gcc7-pr77914.patch So like this (untested)?

[Bug c++/77914] Wrong lambda definition accepted

2017-01-10 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Adam Butcher from comment #4) > (In reply to Michele Caini from comment #3) > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > > > Shall we remove that altogether, or just pedwarn on it? > > > >

[Bug c++/77914] Wrong lambda definition accepted

2016-12-15 Thread abutcher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914 --- Comment #4 from Adam Butcher --- (In reply to Michele Caini from comment #3) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > > Shall we remove that altogether, or just pedwarn on it? > > I suspect it should be rejected, unless it is an inten

[Bug c++/77914] Wrong lambda definition accepted

2016-10-10 Thread michele.caini at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914 --- Comment #3 from Michele Caini --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Shall we remove that altogether, or just pedwarn on it? I suspect it should be rejected, unless it is an intended extension of the compiler (for which I've not b

[Bug c++/77914] Wrong lambda definition accepted

2016-10-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Seems the [](T x){return x}; syntax has been part of N3418 but N3559 changed the proposal to only support auto arguments.

[Bug c++/77914] Wrong lambda definition accepted

2016-10-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid CC|