This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ Patch] PR 84644 ("internal compiler error: in warn_misplaced_attr_for_class_type, at cp/decl.c:4718")
On 12/14/18 4:33 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 14/12/18 21:19, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 12/14/18 1:44 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
If we clear declared_type for a BOUND_TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM, we
should get the "does not declare anything" error.
On 13/12/18 22:03, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/30/18 9:22 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 30/10/18 21:37, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/26/18 2:02 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 26/10/18 17:18, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:52 AM Paolo Carlini
On 24/10/18 22:41, Jason Merrill wrote:
Indeed, it would be nice to just use OVERLOAD_TYPE_P. However
we at least want to let through TEMPLATE_TYPE_PARMs
On 10/15/18 12:45 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I would think that the MAYBE_CLASS_TYPE_P here should be
&& ((TREE_CODE (declspecs->type) != TYPENAME_TYPE
+ && TREE_CODE (declspecs->type) != DECLTYPE_TYPE
&& MAYBE_CLASS_TYPE_P (declspecs->type))
and then we can remove the TYPENAME_TYPE check. Or do we want to
allow template type parameters for some reason?
- otherwise Dodji's check a few lines below which fixed c++/51473
doesn't work anymore - and also BOUND_TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM,
we regress on template/spec32.C and template/ttp22.C because we
diagnose the shadowing anymore. Thus, I would say either we
using MAYBE_CLASS_TYPE_P or we pick what we need, possibly we
add a comment?
Aha. I guess the answer is not to restrict that test any more, but
instead to fix the code further down so it gives a proper
rather than call warn_misplaced_attr_for_class_type.
I see. Thus something like the below? It passes testing on
+ if ((!declared_type || TREE_CODE (declared_type) ==
+ && ! saw_friend && !error_p)
permerror (input_location, "declaration does not declare
I see no reason to make this specific to decltype. Maybe move
this diagnostic into the final 'else' block with the other
declspec diagnostics and not look at declared_type at all?
I'm not sure to fully understand: if we do that we still want to at
least minimally check that declared_type is null, like we already
do, and then we simply accept the new testcase. Is that Ok?
Because, as I probably mentioned at some point, all the other
compilers I have at hand issue a "does not declare anything"
diagnostic, and we likewise do that for the legacy __typeof. Not
looking into declared_type *at all* doesn't work with plain class
types and enums, of course. Or you meant something entirely
+ if (declspecs->attributes && warn_attributes && declared_type
+ && TREE_CODE (declared_type) != DECLTYPE_TYPE)
I think we do want to give a diagnostic about useless attributes,
not skip it.
Agreed. FWIW the attached tests fine.
The problem here is that the code toward the bottom expects
"declared_type" to be the tagged type declared by a declaration with
no declarator, and in this testcase it's ending up as a DECLTYPE_TYPE.
I think once we've checked for 'auto' we don't want declared_type to
be anything that isn't OVERLOAD_TYPE_P. We can arrange that either
by checking for 'auto' first and then changing the code that sets
declared_type to use OVERLOAD_TYPE_P, or by clearing declared_type
after checking for 'auto' if it isn't OVERLOAD_TYPE_P.
Thanks. I'm slowly catching up on this issue... Any suggestion about
BOUND_TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM? If we don't let through such tree nodes
- which are MAYBE_CLASS_TYPE_P and aren't OVERLOAD_TYPE_P - we
regress on template/spec32.C, we don't reject it anymore.
Ah, now I see, I didn't realize that we would also change the errors we
issue for those testcases. Thus the below is finishing testing, appears
to work fine.