This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/26058] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] C++ error recovery regression
- From: "sabre at nondot dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 31 May 2006 22:17:44 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/26058] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] C++ error recovery regression
- References: <bug-26058-6809@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #7 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-05-31 22:17 -------
Ok, makes sense. The strategy that made sense to me was "If I see a definition
for something that obviously has to be at global scope, but is defined inside
of a function, pop all the way out to global scope and continue, there must be
a missing }". I have no idea how hard that is to implement though. If you
think it's infeasible to implement or would confuse some other important case,
then I'm ok with RESOLVED INVALID.
-Chris
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26058