From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25913 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2010 18:37:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Received: (qmail 25896 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jan 2010 18:37:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4B6088BA.8080305@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:37:00 -0000 From: Sami Wagiaalla User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100120 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: archer@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [expr-cumulative] RFA: fix explicit operator parsing References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2010-q1/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 On 01/27/2010 01:22 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > While looking at a bug I found that expr-cumulative does not handle one > case of explicit calls to an operator: > > (gdb) p operator==(s1,s2) > A syntax error in expression, near `operator==(s1,s2)'. > > The bug is that the name_not_typename production does not handle > operator. > > This patch fixes the problem and adds a couple new test cases -- one for > the bug and one for an explicit call to an operator as a member > function; I couldn't find one of these in the test suite. > > Built and regtested on x86-64 (compile farm). > Ok? > Yes, please commit.