Re: [C PATCH] Follow-up fix to the misclassified token problem (PR c/67784)

2016-04-26 Thread Joseph Myers
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Marek Polacek wrote: > Ah, right, that revealed two more places that were missing the > c_parser_maybe_reclassify_token call. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk? OK. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: [C PATCH] Follow-up fix to the misclassified token problem (PR c/67784)

2016-04-26 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:06:16PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:44:52AM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > > > This PR was reopened, because the exact same problem with treating a > > > TYPENAME > > > wrongly as an ID was fou

Re: [C PATCH] Follow-up fix to the misclassified token problem (PR c/67784)

2016-04-26 Thread Marek Polacek
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:44:52AM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > This PR was reopened, because the exact same problem with treating a > > TYPENAME > > wrongly as an ID was found when using just if-clause, without an enclosing > > for > > loop. More

Re: [C PATCH] Follow-up fix to the misclassified token problem (PR c/67784)

2016-04-26 Thread Joseph Myers
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Marek Polacek wrote: > This PR was reopened, because the exact same problem with treating a TYPENAME > wrongly as an ID was found when using just if-clause, without an enclosing for > loop. More details: > . > That fi

[C PATCH] Follow-up fix to the misclassified token problem (PR c/67784)

2016-04-26 Thread Marek Polacek
This PR was reopened, because the exact same problem with treating a TYPENAME wrongly as an ID was found when using just if-clause, without an enclosing for loop. More details: . That fix had a follow-up, because it broke some ObjC code. T