Hi,
On 18/05/2018 16:19, Jason Merrill wrote:
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).
I can certainly try to implement this, maybe just something minimal to
begin with, as you say ) or ; alone would be safe and would already take
care of all the tests I have around.
Certainly, unconditionally deferring at that point to
cp_parser_expression leads to *very* bad error-recovery. For fun, try
with 8.1.0:
void foo()
{
for (;void bar(););
}
and it gets worse.
Paolo.
