On 11/04/2011 01:59 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Right, my point is that the comment before
> cp_parser_transaction_expression refers to compound_statement, which
> seems wrong.
>
> ...because the compound-statement variant is handled in cp_parser_transaction.
Oh, duh. I was so focused on the attr
On 11/04/2011 04:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/04/2011 04:14 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/04/2011 12:26 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/04/2011 03:23 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
(cp_parser_transaction_expression): Don't parse txn-attributes here.
There's also the issue that the gra
On 11/04/2011 04:14 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/04/2011 12:26 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/04/2011 03:23 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
(cp_parser_transaction_expression): Don't parse txn-attributes here.
There's also the issue that the grammar uses compound-statement, whereas the
On 11/04/2011 12:26 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 11/04/2011 03:23 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> (cp_parser_transaction_expression): Don't parse txn-attributes here.
>
> There's also the issue that the grammar uses compound-statement, whereas the
> code parses a parenthesized expression.
T
On 11/04/2011 03:23 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
(cp_parser_transaction_expression): Don't parse txn-attributes here.
There's also the issue that the grammar uses compound-statement, whereas
the code parses a parenthesized expression.
Jason
On 11/04/2011 11:31 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Speaking of which, that function's comment doesn't match the code:
>
>> + transaction-expression:
>> + __transaction_atomic txn-exception-spec[opt] compound-statement
>> + __transaction_relaxed txn-exception-spec[opt] compound-statement
Fix
On 11/04/2011 02:19 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/04/11 10:51, Jason Merrill wrote:
Are you sure that [[attribute]] is the only way a [ can appear there?
Yes. We're immediately following a keyword. The only two valid tokens that can
follow that keyword are [ and {.
Ah, I saw the cp_pa
On 11/04/2011 11:16 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 11/04/11 10:51, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 11/03/2011 02:53 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>> + if (cp_lexer_next_token_is_not (parser->lexer, CPP_OPEN_SQUARE))
>>> + return NULL_TREE;
>>> + cp_lexer_consume_token (parser->lexer);
>>> + if (!cp_parser_
On 11/04/11 10:51, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/03/2011 02:53 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
+ if (cp_lexer_next_token_is_not (parser->lexer, CPP_OPEN_SQUARE))
+ return NULL_TREE;
+ cp_lexer_consume_token (parser->lexer);
+ if (!cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_OPEN_SQUARE, RT_OPEN_SQUARE))
+ goto error1
On 11/03/2011 02:53 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
+ if (cp_lexer_next_token_is_not (parser->lexer, CPP_OPEN_SQUARE))
+return NULL_TREE;
+ cp_lexer_consume_token (parser->lexer);
+ if (!cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_OPEN_SQUARE, RT_OPEN_SQUARE))
+goto error1;
Are you sure that [[attribut
comma placement.
Ciao,
Michael.
Committed.
Thanks
cp/parser.c (enum required_token): Fix comma.
Index: parser.c
===
--- parser.c(revision 180772)
+++ parser.c(working copy)
@@ -171,9 +171,8 @@ typedef enum req
Hi,
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> +++ gcc/cp/parser.c (.../branches/transactional-memory) (revision
> 180773)
> @@ -172,6 +172,10 @@ typedef enum required_token {
>RT_JUMP, /* jump-statement */
>RT_CLASS_KEY, /* class-key */
>RT_CLASS_TYPENAME_TEMPLATE /* class, ty
12 matches
Mail list logo
