On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 18/05/2018 15:56, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> I had in mind moving the call to cp_parser_check_condition_declarator >> into the block controlled by cp_parser_parse_definitely; this is a >> semantic check that should follow the syntactic checks. If there's no >> initializer, it doesn't parse as a condition declaration, so we don't >> want to complain about it being a semantically invalid condition >> declaration. > > If we do that we are back to something very, very, similar to what I posted > at the beginning of the thread, right? Therefore, for all the testcases > which don't have an initializer we end-up with *horrible*, literally > *horrible* cascades of errors, plus we ICE on the c++/84588 variants without > an initializer.
Ah. Why is that? I guess it's desirable to also give this error when the declarator is followed by ) or ; rather than other tokens that could be more expression (like in A(a).x in the comment). Jason
