From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30258 invoked by alias); 31 May 2006 23:00:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 29956 invoked by uid 48); 31 May 2006 23:00:04 -0000 Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 23:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060531230004.29955.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/26058] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] C++ error recovery regression In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "sabre at nondot dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg03270.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #9 from sabre at nondot dot org 2006-05-31 23:00 ------- Right, clearly issuing good diagnostics is a matter of balancing cases against each other. While I agree that this is valid: void f() { void g(); g(); } I don't see it used very often, particularly not in C++ code (I'm accustomed to seeing it in pre-ansi C code most of the time). I personally think that forgetting (or losing track of) the brace occurs more often than the erroneous version of this, but if you disagree, that's fine and I'll stop bugging you! -Chris -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26058