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] |
On 05/18/2016 11:05 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 18/05/2016 16:39, Jason Merrill wrote:On 05/17/2016 04:47 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:this ICE during error recovery exposes a rather more general weakness: we should never call cp_lexer_peek_nth_token (*, 2) when a previous cp_lexer_peek_token returns CPP_EOF.
Hmm, that seems fragile, I would expect it to keep returning EOF.
Indeed. I didn't explain myself well enough. I meant something along the lines: outside this specific and minor case of ICE during error recovery, we should audit our code and keep in mind that calling cp_lexer_peek_nth_token (*, anything > 1, the common case) right after cp_lexer_peek_token is, how shall I put it, "suspect", due to that assert at the beginning of cp_lexer_peek_nth_token.
I understood that, but I think that assert should be replaced with code to properly handle that case.
Jason
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |