This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/10771] [3.4 regression] Unreadable error message for illegal specialization
- From: "gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 29 Aug 2003 07:57:33 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/10771] [3.4 regression] Unreadable error message for illegal specialization
- References: <20030513180603.10771.giovannibajo@libero.it>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10771
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
AssignedTo|gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
| |dot org
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
------- Additional Comments From gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-08-29 07:57 -------
Well, got it. This is a problem in the new parser proper.
The way cp_parser_nested_name_specifier_opt and cp_parser_id_expressions
are working does not look right to me. I think
cp_parser_nested_name_specifier_opt is being too greedy and not enough careful.
By the time we issue the misleading diagnostic, we are in
cp_parser_unqualified_id and the token we peek is the semicolon ending
the class definition. We should have been there much much earlier.
Deferring this to Mark.