Re: [RFA] statement before variable declaration in cp_parser_initializer_list.
Hi Richard, Hmm? We compile with a C++ compiler where this is perfectly valid ... I was compiling with GCC 4.7 where it gave me a warning... I don't know much about C++ anymore, so I didn't know. Oh well! Ah, for the 4.7 branch yes. Eric Botcazou asked that we have the same code for both 4.7 and HEAD. Would it be OK to apply it to both? It's not really strictly necessary for the HEAD, but I don't see it as being harmful either. Thank you! -- Joel
Re: [RFA] statement before variable declaration in cp_parser_initializer_list.
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Joel Brobecker brobec...@adacore.com wrote: Hi Richard, Hmm? We compile with a C++ compiler where this is perfectly valid ... I was compiling with GCC 4.7 where it gave me a warning... I don't know much about C++ anymore, so I didn't know. Oh well! Ah, for the 4.7 branch yes. Eric Botcazou asked that we have the same code for both 4.7 and HEAD. Would it be OK to apply it to both? It's not really strictly necessary for the HEAD, but I don't see it as being harmful either. Sure. Richard. Thank you! -- Joel
Re: [RFA] statement before variable declaration in cp_parser_initializer_list.
Eric Botcazou asked that we have the same code for both 4.7 and HEAD. Would it be OK to apply it to both? It's not really strictly necessary for the HEAD, but I don't see it as being harmful either. Sure. Thank you! Now checked in. -- Joel
Re: [RFA] statement before variable declaration in cp_parser_initializer_list.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Joel Brobecker brobec...@adacore.com wrote:
Hello,
I happened to notice a warning while compiling GCC, and it seemed
like an easy fix...
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* parser.c (cp_parser_initializer_list): Move declaration
of variable non_const to start of lexical block.
Tested against x86_64-linux, no regression.
OK to commit? (obvious?)
Hmm? We compile with a C++ compiler where this is perfectly valid ...
Richard.
Thanks,
--
Joel
---
gcc/cp/parser.c |3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.c b/gcc/cp/parser.c
index 3dc2ec6..61d93f8 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/parser.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c
@@ -17932,9 +17932,10 @@ cp_parser_initializer_list (cp_parser* parser, bool*
non_constant_p)
cp_lexer_next_token_is (parser-lexer, CPP_OPEN_SQUARE))
{
/* In C++11, [ could start a lambda-introducer. */
+ bool non_const = false;
+
cp_parser_parse_tentatively (parser);
cp_lexer_consume_token (parser-lexer);
- bool non_const = false;
designator = cp_parser_constant_expression (parser, true,
non_const);
cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_CLOSE_SQUARE, RT_CLOSE_SQUARE);
cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_EQ, RT_EQ);
--
1.7.0.4
Re: [RFA] statement before variable declaration in cp_parser_initializer_list.
Tested against x86_64-linux, no regression. OK to commit? (obvious?) Hmm? We compile with a C++ compiler where this is perfectly valid ... I was compiling with GCC 4.7 where it gave me a warning... I don't know much about C++ anymore, so I didn't know. Oh well! -- Joel
Re: [RFA] statement before variable declaration in cp_parser_initializer_list.
Hmm? We compile with a C++ compiler where this is perfectly valid ... Not on earlier branches though, e.g. the 4.7 branch. So I would install it everywhere to avoid gratuitous differences. -- Eric Botcazou
Re: [RFA] statement before variable declaration in cp_parser_initializer_list.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Joel Brobecker brobec...@adacore.com wrote: Tested against x86_64-linux, no regression. OK to commit? (obvious?) Hmm? We compile with a C++ compiler where this is perfectly valid ... I was compiling with GCC 4.7 where it gave me a warning... I don't know much about C++ anymore, so I didn't know. Oh well! Ah, for the 4.7 branch yes. Thanks, Richard. -- Joel
