On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 02:49:09PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Could you please add some testcases that would test the handling of
> > structured bindings in these new forms of range for, like:
> > for (int i = 0; auto [ x, y ] : z)
> > but perhaps for completeness also in the init-stmt and per
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 06:45:41PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:45:43AM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > 2018-05-23 Marek Polacek
> >
> > Implement P0614R1, Range-based for statements with initializer.
> > * parser.c (cp_parser_range_based_for_with_init_p): Ne
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:45:43AM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> 2018-05-23 Marek Polacek
>
> Implement P0614R1, Range-based for statements with initializer.
> * parser.c (cp_parser_range_based_for_with_init_p): New.
> (cp_parser_init_statement): Use it. Parse the optional in
OK.
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 7:25 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 09:51:44PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> >> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Marek Po
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 09:46:10PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 7:25 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 09:51:44PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >> > The previous version of this patch got confus
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 7:25 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 09:51:44PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > The previous version of this patch got confused by
>> >
>> > for (int i = 0; n > 0 ? true : false; i++)
>> > /
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 09:51:44PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > The previous version of this patch got confused by
> >
> > for (int i = 0; n > 0 ? true : false; i++)
> > // ...
> >
> > because even though we see a ; followed by a :,
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> The previous version of this patch got confused by
>
> for (int i = 0; n > 0 ? true : false; i++)
> // ...
>
> because even though we see a ; followed by a :, it's not a range-based for
> with
> an initializer. I find it very strange
The previous version of this patch got confused by
for (int i = 0; n > 0 ? true : false; i++)
// ...
because even though we see a ; followed by a :, it's not a range-based for with
an initializer. I find it very strange that this didn't show up during the
regtest.
To fix this, I had to ug
