| Message ID | 4FC91E41.1080406@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 06/01/2012 03:55 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 06/01/2012 06:19 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On 06/01/2012 11:40 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> I'm puzzled why build_new is even invoked after detecting that there is >>> a non-constant expression. >> >> I'd accept a patch to change that. > > I don't really now what I'm doing here. But I noticed that in > cp_parser_constant_expression, a failure in > require_potential_rvalue_constant_expression is not reported to the caller. > > This changes error reporting, and a few test cases need adjustment. In > some, reporting is better, in others, it's slightly worse. I need to > make a second pass over the changes to make sure that they are alright. Oh, right. I think I tried this change once and then decided that things were better without it, but I don't remember why. The change looks reasonable by itself; what changes are you seeing in error reporting. Jason
Index: gcc/cp/parser.c =================================================================== --- gcc/cp/parser.c (revision 188104) +++ gcc/cp/parser.c (working copy) @@ -7701,8 +7701,9 @@ cp_parser_constant_expression (cp_parser* parser, separately in e.g. cp_parser_template_argument. */ bool is_const = potential_rvalue_constant_expression (expression); parser->non_integral_constant_expression_p = !is_const; - if (!is_const && !allow_non_constant_p) - require_potential_rvalue_constant_expression (expression); + if (!is_const && !allow_non_constant_p + && !require_potential_rvalue_constant_expression (expression)) + expression = error_mark_node; } if (allow_non_constant_p) *non_constant_p = parser->non_integral_constant_expression_p;