Hi
Jason Merrill ha scritto:
>Since newdecl points to the same tree node as decl1, I don't see what
>difference this would make.
Yeah ;) I think it would if instead of tree newdecl = decl1 I had copy_node
(decl1), right? But I understand it's normally not needed...
And I'm not too worried
On 07/03/2013 03:17 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
In the first try, bailing out early in case of error without undoing the
committed changes to decl1 made me a little nervous. The below variant
works at first on newdecl and only if push_template_decl goes well,
copies it back to decl1. Still passes te
Hi,
today I was going through some pending issues, and decided to rework my
first try at fixing this very old ICE on invalid:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00480.html
In the first try, bailing out early in case of error without undoing the
committed changes to decl1 made m
