On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 04:01:46PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > > if (cp_lexer_next_token_is (parser->lexer, CPP_NAME)) > > > > { > > > > identifier = cp_parser_identifier (parser); > > > > @@ -18904,7 +18916,12 @@ cp_parser_namespace_definition (cp_parser* > > > > parser) > > > > } > > > > if (cp_lexer_next_token_is_not (parser->lexer, CPP_SCOPE)) > > > > - break; > > > > + { > > > > + /* Don't forget that the innermost namespace might have been > > > > + marked as inline. */ > > > > + is_inline |= nested_inline_p; > > > > > > This looks wrong: an inline namespace does not make its nested namespaces > > > inline as well. > > > A nested namespace definition cannot be inline. This is supposed to handle > > cases such as > > namespace A::B::inline C { ... } > > because after 'C' we don't see :: so it breaks and we call push_namespace > > outside the for loop. > > Ah, yes, I see. I was confused by the use of '|='; what is that for? Why > not use '='? For that matter, why not modify is_inline in the loop instead > of a new nested_inline_p variable?
|= is there to handle correctly this case: inline namespace N { ... } where we have to make sure that the call to push_namespace outside the for (;;) is with is_inline=true. Using '=' would overwrite is_inline to false, because there are no nested inlines. For the same reason I needed a second bool: to not lose the information about the topmost inline. But since the second push_namespace call also needs to handle the innermost namespace, it can't use topmost_inline_p. Marek