Agreed, I tend not to backport bugs on invalid code, definitely not if
we already give a useful diagnostic.
Jason
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On 12/04/2016 15:53, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> Let's go with the first patch.
>
> What about this one? Today I
Hi again,
On 12/04/2016 15:53, Jason Merrill wrote:
Let's go with the first patch.
What about this one? Today I returned to it, and technically it still
represents a regression in gcc-4_9-branch and gcc-5-branch, but
personally I'd rather not backport the fix: in release-mode we just emit
an
Let's go with the first patch.
Jason
Hi,
I'm having a look at this ICE during error recovery regression and I
have a couple of different proposals which both pass testing. In the
first case, instead of reaching (in cp_parser_cache_defarg):
default_argument = make_node (DEFAULT_ARG);
DEFARG_TOKENS (default_argument)
= cp_
