On Mar 22, 2018, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:29 PM, Alexandre Oliva <aol...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Mar 20, 2018, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>>> + if (id == error_mark_node) >>>> + return error_mark_node; >> >>> Why wait until here to return? There are error returns immediately >>> above and below your first hunk. >> >> QOI. Returning immediately, we then get other errors. We could consume >> tokens till the end of the declaration, but I figured we might as well >> try to parse them and see whether there were any other legitimate errors >> to report.
> It just seems a bit odd to have the check and the return so far apart. > Do they need to be separate at all? That depends on how much cp_parser_check_template_parameters depends on the parser state; I worried moving it down might cause the template state to have changed enough that the test wouldn't be testing what we wanted any more, so I kept it right after parsing the identifier. > I think we definitely want to move the check down below the > cp_parser_commit_to_tentative_parse. If you say that won't get it the wrong context for the test, sure. I'll run a test cycle with that change. -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer
