From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 506F9385BF83; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:10:13 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 506F9385BF83 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1586891413; bh=36skex0wMqNfKp06+vg0cK6odbia5Epp3Kue3XieNn0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=M5gyj/zX3bD3WEyDeZlaA7I15XvY+MIkzAK7Bd2GqC63ATknappgnXqFAXnB/BHAJ L3eUSJV+e7eIhgBTlOT0vMSFRAWbS0AHK3rVgl8bAUBHzLmqxFGAdeEdj7kjze4sSp fjYZdyZ9ycErUU3w8Xkkmm3j/JJ7+hk2/YQvnIEI= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/94571] Error: Expected comma or semicolon, comma found Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:10:13 +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: 10.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic 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: 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:10:13 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94571 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4) > I think that won't handle >=20 > auto x(1), [e,f] =3D test2; >=20 > where we should also say what clang says (or at least give inform()). That gives error: expected unqualified-id before =E2=80=98[=E2=80=99 token right now. It would be quite a different spot that would need to handle th= at, and the question is if we should do it whenever seeing just [ or if we shou= ld in that case e.g. try to parse tentatively the structured binding or at lea= st part of it and only give that diagnostics if it looks like an otherwise val= id structured binding.=