OK.
Jason
On 11/08/2011 01:51 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Do we need to check the code of postfix_expression at all?
Ah! You implied that, in your previous message, but seemed too nice to
me ;) Let me regtest without...
And this indeed passes testing. A rather old testcase got a slightly
more accurate error
On 11/08/2011 01:49 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/07/2011 07:31 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ if (TREE_CODE (parser->scope) == NAMESPACE_DECL
+ && (TREE_CODE (postfix_expression) == ARROW_EXPR
+ || TREE_CODE (postfix_expression) == CALL_EXPR))
Do we need to check the code
On 11/07/2011 07:31 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ if (TREE_CODE (parser->scope) == NAMESPACE_DECL
+ && (TREE_CODE (postfix_expression) == ARROW_EXPR
+ || TREE_CODE (postfix_expression) == CALL_EXPR))
Do we need to check the code of postfix_expression
On 11/07/2011 09:39 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/28/2011 08:10 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I reverted it. Had inadvertently tested with checking disabled, the
problem with checking enabled happens earlier than that.
Was there a problem with the patch? It still looks correct even if it
doesn't
On 10/28/2011 08:10 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I reverted it. Had inadvertently tested with checking disabled, the
problem with checking enabled happens earlier than that.
Was there a problem with the patch? It still looks correct even if it
doesn't fix this testcase, so there's no need to reve
On 10/29/2011 01:53 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 10/28/2011 08:19 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
OK.
Jason
Humpf, looks I did something wrong when testing this and now I see the
new testcase failing. I'm going to look a bit into this, and otherwise
in an hour or so will simply revert the whole thing
On 10/28/2011 08:19 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
OK.
Jason
Humpf, looks I did something wrong when testing this and now I see the
new testcase failing. I'm going to look a bit into this, and otherwise
in an hour or so will simply revert the whole thing.
Sorry,
Paolo.
OK.
Jason
