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
Hi,
this is what I figured out for the parser: I'm dealing also with '.', as
you recommended, and I tidied a bit the code wrt my first draft try,
consistently with the way we are handling another error condition a few
lines earlier.
Re-tested x86_64-linux.
Thanks,
Paolo.
//
