From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-389162-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 11268 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2012 21:11:43 -0000
Received: (qmail 11229 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2012 21:11:42 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:10:54 +0000
From: "fabien at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/52841] [4.7/4.8 Regression] error: type 'Solvable' is not a base type for type 'Resolvable'
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:11:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: fabien at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: fabien at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.1
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-52841-4-ukFYyFfugP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-52841-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-52841-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg01444.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52841

--- Comment #8 from fabien at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-17 21:08:13 UTC ---
It is related to alias declarations. It seems that we do not recover properly
from a failure in cp_parser_alias_declaration, in the block introduced by this
check: "if (!(flags & CP_PARSER_FLAGS_NO_USER_DEFINED_TYPES))", around here:

#0  cp_parser_simple_type_specifier (parser=0x7ffff571b738,
decl_specs=0x7fffffffdd00, flags=1) at ../../gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:13651
#1  0x00000000006be5e0 in cp_parser_type_specifier (parser=0x7ffff571b738,
flags=1, decl_specs=0x7fffffffdd00, is_declaration=0 '\000',
declares_class_or_enum=0x0, is_cv_qualifier=0x7fffffffdcde "") at
../../gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:13434
#2  0x00000000006c5c96 in cp_parser_type_specifier_seq (parser=0x7ffff571b738,
is_declaration=0 '\000', is_trailing_return=0 '\000',
type_specifier_seq=0x7fffffffdd00) at ../../gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:16887
#3  0x00000000006c5a63 in cp_parser_type_id_1 (parser=0x7ffff571b738,
is_template_arg=0 '\000', is_trailing_return=0 '\000') at
../../gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:16771
#4  0x00000000006c5b57 in cp_parser_type_id (parser=0x7ffff571b738) at
../../gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:16810
#5  0x00000000006c1987 in cp_parser_alias_declaration (parser=0x7ffff571b738)
at ../../gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c:15101

I can't find what goes wrong there. The good news is that it seems to work if
we return earlier in cp_parser_alias_declaration -- which I think is better --,
like in the attached patch.

Perhaps Dodji (or Jason) can take a closer look ?