This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [C++ Patch / RFC] PR 51422

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 09:52:14 -0400
Subject: Re: [C++ Patch / RFC] PR 51422
References: <506433B1.1010206@oracle.com>

On 09/27/2012 07:08 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:

Then checking error_operand_p (decl) in is_capture_proxy solves the
problem but now the question is: do we have reasons to believe that such
VAR_DECLs should never ever reach is_normal_capture_proxy?

That depends on our error recovery strategy for an invalid capture. It seems that we currently build a VAR_DECL that has an error_mark_node DECL_VALUE_EXPR; if we're going to do that, we need to deal with it. I guess we should return true in that case, if it doesn't cause more problems later on.

Jason

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [C++ Patch / RFC] PR 51422
  - From: Paolo Carlini

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]