Re: [C++ Patch / RFC] PR 51422

2012-10-07 Thread Jason Merrill
OK. Jason

Re: [C++ Patch / RFC] PR 51422

2012-10-07 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, On 10/06/2012 03:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 09/27/2012 07:08 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Then checking error_operand_p (decl) in is_capture_proxy solves the problem but now the question is: do we have reasons to believe that such VAR_DECLs should never ever reach is_normal_capture_proxy?

Re: [C++ Patch / RFC] PR 51422

2012-10-06 Thread Jason Merrill
On 09/27/2012 07:08 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Then checking error_operand_p (decl) in is_capture_proxy solves the problem but now the question is: do we have reasons to believe that such VAR_DECLs should never ever reach is_normal_capture_proxy? That depends on our error recovery strategy for an

[C++ Patch / RFC] PR 51422

2012-09-27 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, almost forgot that a few weeks ago I spent some time on this PR... The issue is simple: in these repeated error conditions we ICE on the gcc_assert in is_normal_capture_proxy: decl is a VAR_DECL with an error_mark_node as TREE_TYPE. Then checking error_operand_p (decl) in is_capture_prox