[C++ Patch/RFC] PR 71169 ("[7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code in pop_nested_class"), PR 71832 and more

[Jason Merrill]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [snip the various clarifications]
>
> Il 7 Marzo 2018 17:57:07 CET, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> ha scritto:
>>My thought was that this patch adds a lot of managing of the flag in
>>different places in the parser, whereas looking for error_mark_node in
>>the template parms here would be just in one place.  But if you prefer
>>the current approach, that's fine, it's straightforward enough.
>
> Thanks a lot for the various clarifications above, where essentially turns out that some details of my patch are correct essentially by chance ;) Seriously, I'm thinking the following: since 8 is getting real close, what if, for 8, for the known mild regressions, we go ahead with my super safe Plan B which I mentioned at beginning of the thread, then as soon as trunk branches we immediately apply my patch and we give it a serious spin, say we rebuild distros with it, and see what happens?

This is what I was suggesting, what do you think?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 71832.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3045 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20180307/9b23cc04/attachment.bin>