Re: direct_notype_declarator and constructors

[Clinton Popetz <cpopetz at cygnus dot com>]

On Fri, Feb 25, 2000 at 04:57:48PM -0800, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>>>> Clinton Popetz <cpopetz@cygnus.com> writes:
> 
>  > Removing the precedence declaration from this rule in cp/parse.y:
>  > direct_notype_declarator:
>  >           complex_direct_notype_declarator
>  >         /* This precedence declaration is to prefer this reduce
>  >            to the Koenig lookup shift in primary, below.  I hate yacc.  */
>  >         | notype_unqualified_id %prec '('
> 
>  > Can someone post code that exhibits the need for the %prec?  If not, is the
>  > patch below ok?  FWIW, this introduces two shift/reduce conflicts ('(' and
>  > LEFT_RIGHT) which bison resolves as reduce.  
> 
> If the conflicts are resolved as reduce anyway, I don't understand why
> removing the %prec would make a difference.

Oops, I mistakenly read a reverse diff of the verbose output.  There were two
conflicts that were _previously_ resolved as reductions, but are now resolved as
shifts:

730,731d729
< Conflict in state 1039 between rule 302 and token LEFT_RIGHT resolved as reduce.
< Conflict in state 1039 between rule 302 and token '(' resolved as reduce.
818c816
< State 1039 contains 4 reduce/reduce conflicts.
---
> State 1039 contains 2 shift/reduce conflicts and 4 reduce/reduce conflicts.
27725a27724,27725
>     LEFT_RIGHT        shift, and go to state 610
>     '('       shift, and go to state 611
27727c27727
<     LEFT_RIGHT        reduce using rule 302 (direct_notype_declarator)
---
>     LEFT_RIGHT        [reduce using rule 302 (direct_notype_declarator)]
27729c27729
<     '('       reduce using rule 302 (direct_notype_declarator)
---
>     '('       [reduce using rule 302 (direct_notype_declarator)]


				-Clint