OK.
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/03/2017 16:57, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> As such, the broken declaration cannot be rejected by the code we have in >>> finish_struct, something must happen earlier than that. It seems to me >>> that >>> xref_tag_1 can be a good place, per the below patchlet, which passes >>> testing >>> on x86_64-linux. I briefly wondered if making is_std_init_list stricter >>> would make sense instead, but I don't think so (consistently with the >>> trail >>> of c++/60848 too): I believe that by the time we use is_std_init_list in >>> the >>> internals we want something as simple as possible, we are assuming that >>> broken, fake, std::initializer_list aren't around in the translation >>> unit. >>> In terms of details, I also wondered if CLASSTYPE_IS_TEMPLATE would make >>> for >>> a better check, but seems unnecessarily more complex. Also, in principle, >>> we >>> may want to have an even stricter check at declaration time (how many >>> template parameters, etc) but that seems overkilling and I don't think we >>> are risking ICEs because of that. >> >> I agree with all of this. How about in pushtag_1 instead, where we >> can return error_mark_node instead of aborting? > > Sure. In that case the testcase for that older issue also requires > adjusting. The below passes testing, anyway. > > Thanks, > Paolo. > > ////////////////////
