[Bug c++/20478] poor diagnostic

[Bug c++/20478] poor diagnostic

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-12 16:47 -------
It would be helpful if you could reduce the testcase. Thanks.


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |manu at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20478

[Bug c++/20478] poor parse error diagnostic

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20478

[Bug c++/20478] poor parse error diagnostic

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-14 08:28 -------
Andrew, could you please try to reduce the test case for this bug with your
tools?


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
           Keywords|                            |diagnostic


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20478

[Bug c++/20478] poor parse error diagnostic

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-14 20:28 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> Andrew, could you please try to reduce the test case for this bug with your
> tools?
last time I tried, it was just bogus and right now I don't have time to deal
with it as I am way busy with the PS3 toolchain.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20478

[Bug c++/20478] poor parse error diagnostic

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-25 21:11 -------
g++-4.3 opx.cpp -S 2>&1 | head -20
opx.cpp:9132: error: ISO C++ says that these are ambiguous, even though the
worst conversion for the first is better than the worst conversion for the
second:
opx.cpp:9132: note: candidate 1: operator-(int, int) <built-in>
opx.cpp:4657: note: candidate 2: T operator-(T, Arg) [with Arg = arity, T =
element<signed char>]


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20478

[Bug c++/20478] poor parse error diagnostic

[igodard at pacbell dot net]

------- 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

[Bug c++/20478] poor parse error diagnostic

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-02-10 13:38 -------
I am all for making parser errors more accurate but I honestly think we should
close this as WONTFIX because this particular testcase is a waste of time. I
don't think automatic reduction is possible since small changes would just
alter the parse tree and generate a different error (see GCC 4.3 output versus
original output). And generating a smaller testcase manually seems an arduous
task. 

Perhaps someone else will provide a smaller testcase in other PR, but making a
connection with this one seems difficult.

In summary, if our only chance is that fixing another future PR somehow fixes
this, then we may well close this now.


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20478