On 11/07/2011 10:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/26/2011 04:35 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
We have that parser->scope is a RECORD_TYPE and postfix_expression is an
INDIRECT_REF.
Ah, OK. I guess we swallow up the namespace while parsing the full
nested-name-specifier and it isn't a problem. So
On 10/26/2011 04:35 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
We have that parser->scope is a RECORD_TYPE and postfix_expression is an
INDIRECT_REF.
Ah, OK. I guess we swallow up the namespace while parsing the full
nested-name-specifier and it isn't a problem. So I think handling this
here should be OK. B
On 10/26/2011 10:35 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 10/26/2011 10:30 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
At a glance, it looks too early; it's valid to have
namespace-qualified names after ->.
namespace A
{
struct B
{
int i;
};
};
A::B* b;
int i = b->A::B::i;
I was also trying to construct su
On 10/26/2011 10:30 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
At a glance, it looks too early; it's valid to have
namespace-qualified names after ->.
namespace A
{
struct B
{
int i;
};
};
A::B* b;
int i = b->A::B::i;
I was also trying to construct such kind of example myself... but my
patch doe
Hi,
At a glance, it looks too early; it's valid to have
namespace-qualified names after ->.
namespace A
{
struct B
{
int i;
};
};
A::B* b;
int i = b->A::B::i;
I was also trying to construct such kind of example myself... but my
patch does not regress on the testcase you wrote down.
On 10/26/2011 04:04 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
The below tries to catch the problem very early, in
cp_parser_postfix_dot_deref_expression and apparently works fine, passes
the testsuite, etc. Is it too early? Is the check tight enough?
At a glance, it looks too early; it's valid to have namespace
Hi,
one more / RFC, for the ICE on invalid part of these issues with '->'.
The below tries to catch the problem very early, in
cp_parser_postfix_dot_deref_expression and apparently works fine, passes
the testsuite, etc. Is it too early? Is the check tight enough?
Thanks,
Paolo.
