On 05/12/2012 05:13 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I find the name "sentry" confusing; I don't see how it applies.
Perhaps "current" instead?
Eh, from the point of view of a C++ library guy is even more confusing
but I tried to overcome that feeling ;) Anyway the below is the patch as
committed, usi
I find the name "sentry" confusing; I don't see how it applies. Perhaps
"current" instead?
Otherwise, the patch is OK.
Jason
On 05/10/2012 04:28 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Looks good.
Thanks Jason. The below is the idea fully implemented.
The call.c bits are exactly in the form I had in mind a couple of days ago.
The parser.c bits, the ones I actually preliminarily posted, are now a
bit different: I noticed that in t
Looks good.
Jason
On 10 May 2012 07:55, Miles Bader wrote:
> Paolo Carlini writes:
>> in case my message ends up garbled, the carets do not point to &&
>> (column 13), two times point to b (column 20), which is obviously
>> wrong. In other terms, all the columns are 20, all wrong.
>
> The new caret support does se
Paolo Carlini writes:
> in case my message ends up garbled, the carets do not point to &&
> (column 13), two times point to b (column 20), which is obviously
> wrong. In other terms, all the columns are 20, all wrong.
The new caret support does seem to have revealed a bunch of places
where the co
Hi,
I'm looking into making more progress on those locations, for another
class of cases. Consider:
struct T { };
T foo();
void bar(int a, int b)
{
if (foo() && a < b)
;
}
thus, in this case, we have a class type T, instead of void. The error
message is:
a.cc: In function ‘void bar
