On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 12:55 AM Tobias Burnus <tob...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > I have now committed this patch > as r10-7614-g13e41d8b9d3d7598c72c38acc86a3d97046c8373,
On Linux/x86, I got FAIL: g++.dg/declare-pr94120.C -std=c++14 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/declare-pr94120.C -std=c++17 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/declare-pr94120.C -std=c++2a (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/declare-pr94120.C -std=c++98 (test for excess errors) > reading "so we shall accept it" as approval … > > On 4/1/20 9:07 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > Even if the ICE is then fixed, should we still keep > > <https://gcc.gnu.org/PR94120> open (with a note) until > > <https://github.com/OpenACC/openacc-spec/issues/288> is > > resolved/published? > > I decided to close it and mention the namelist issue and > the now-fixed PR in PR84140 (which is about (non)static > class member variables, which is also covered in Issue 288). > > > Regarding the C/C++ patch you posted: I'm not at all familiar with the > > front ends' scoping implementation. But, given that your patch really > > only touches the OpenACC 'declare' code paths, it can't cause any harm > > otherwise, so we shall accept it. Maybe Jakub has any comments, though? > > >>> +c_check_oacc_same_scope (tree decl) > >> Is the function really specific to OpenACC? If not, then "_oacc" > >> could be dropped from its name. How about "c_check_current_scope"? > > Yeah, that may be a good idea. Similar constructs seem to be used in a > > few other places, though without the 'DECL_NAME' indirection. > > I now use c_check_in_current_scope. > > Tobias > ----------------- > Mentor Graphics (Deutschland) GmbH, Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München / Germany > Registergericht München HRB 106955, Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, > Alexander Walter -- H.J.