From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 19E223858D32; Mon,  9 May 2022 16:49:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 19E223858D32
From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?W0J1ZyBjLzEwNTUzNl0gW09wZW5NUF0gQm9ndXMgImV4cGVjdGVk?=
 =?UTF-8?B?IOKAmGNvbmN1cnJlbnTigJkgYmVmb3JlIOKAmHJlcHJvZHVjaWJsZeKAmSI=?=
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 16:49:56 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, openmp
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-105536-4-aVRz3Fl9q4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105536-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105536-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 16:49:57 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105536

--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The issue occurred at real-world code (sollve_vv testcase before it was fix=
ed).

The issue is because of:
   if (c_parser_next_token_is (parser, CPP_NAME)
      && c_parser_peek_2nd_token (parser)->type =3D=3D CPP_COLON)
/* ... Parse reproducible/unconstrained ... */

  p =3D IDENTIFIER_POINTER (c_parser_peek_token (parser)->value);
  if (strcmp (p, "concurrent") !=3D 0)
    {
      c_parser_error (parser, "expected %<concurrent%>");
      goto out_err;
    }

And the error message is then 'expected concurrent'
   + auto-added "before <what comes instead>"

That message is fine =E2=80=93 except for this specific case it is somewhat=
 misleading.

=E2=86=92 The question is whether we want to handle this in a different way
  (yield better error message, how?)
  OR =E2=80=93 whether that's just too specific and close this PR as WONTFI=
X?=