This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Really fix PR18596
"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com> writes:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, James A. Morrison wrote:
>
> > Right, I can avoid the syntax error using
> > if ($<ttype>$)
> > start_init (...);
> > ...
> > if (!$<ttype>5)
> > break;
> > finish_init ...
>
> I don't think you want a break outside a switch or loop, and start_init
> works without a decl to initialize (for compound literals) so it should be
> possible for start_init and finish_init to be called even in this error
> case (and so ensure that calls to them always bracket initializer
> parsing).
start_init and finish_init seem to be ok without a decl. Unfortunatly
really_start_incrementatl_init and other functions called from the init
rule don't work well without a decl.
The current failing case is: static int g () = { 0 };
> --
> Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
> jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
> joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
> jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
>
--
Thanks,
Jim
http://www.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~ja2morri/
http://phython.blogspot.com
http://open.nit.ca/wiki/?page=jim