From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28416 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2008 22:36:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 27798 invoked by uid 48); 25 Jan 2008 22:35:22 -0000 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080125223522.27797.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/20478] poor parse error diagnostic In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "igodard at pacbell dot net" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg03127.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #7 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2008-01-25 22:35 ------- Yes, it has always been understood that this code is invalid. The report is about the quality of the diagnostic that was given, not whether a diagnostic should be given. The diagnostics (three of them for one error) refer to a location a *long* way from the actual error, and with no obvious (to me anyway) syntactic relationship to the actual problem. -- igodard at pacbell dot net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20478