Re: [tree-ssa] Merge results as of 2003-05-06

[Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, 6 May 2003 23:20:01 -0400, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com> wrote:

> What's more convenient for you guys?  Should I commit the merge
> or would you rather apply the patch to your local trees?  I'd
> rather commit the merge first, so that we don't have to start
> swapping patches back and forth.
>
> The regressions don't look too serious and they all seem to be in
> localized spots, so I wouldn't mind committing the merge and work
> on fixing these regressions.

Works for me.

> -      if (type == error_mark_node)
> +      if (type == error_mark_node
> +	  && declarator != error_mark_node)

I'd probably just add

         if (declarator == error_mark_node)
           break;

before that test.

> We were aborting in g++.old-deja/g++.oliva/template1.C after
> emitting two error messages on the code.  The problem is that
> grokdeclarator was trying to get the operand from
> error_mark_node.  The patch prevents that, but I'm not sure if
> it's the right fix.  For that test, we now emit:
>
> g++.old-deja/g++.oliva/template1.C:10: error: `dim' has not been declared
> g++.old-deja/g++.oliva/template1.C:10: error: `dim' has not been declared
> g++.old-deja/g++.oliva/template1.C: In function `void bar()':
> g++.old-deja/g++.oliva/template1.C:14: error: no matching function for call to `foo<0>::bar(int)'
> g++.old-deja/g++.oliva/template1.C:10: note: candidates are: static void foo<P>::bar() [with int P = 0]
>
> In contrast, mainline emits the 'confused by earlier messages' error.

That's an improvement.

Jason