From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id B99CA3857721; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 15:32:04 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B99CA3857721 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1691767924; bh=0UtF9LBMJlZQ709faP27nQwSPVrF+NmJavh4eBrHsnE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=IahbShx+P6ZOb1BQDNL39gGji/knmC559oFc/zMD9H7xHsVUxRRRJ5wZzYiU++MkW dG/NsTlUN64HWF2dE/6udquJSXfhdzd+nUziwZtjcSUaw5mtOMyUrdZ3bRFN3czB0N TtPw8El0dvbyDtCExw+kGs2JAjWnytKszRJss4xM= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/110349] [C++26] P2169R4 - Placeholder variables with no name Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 15:32:04 +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: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW 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: cc attachments.created Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110349 Jakub Jelinek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 55725 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D55725&action=3Dedit gcc14-pr110349-wip.patch I've played with this a little bit so far, but am a little bit stuck. When lookup_name reports error on ambiguous _ because 2+ declarations with = the _ name are in the same scope (counting function overloads as one obviously), the error is reported too many times, even from tentative parsing. And also unsure if it should return error_mark_node in that case or not, if= I return error_mark_node I get some extra error recovery errors as well (thou= gh if the error is avoided during tentative parsing, I guess we have to return error_mark_node in that case.=