Re: [C++ PATCH] PR c++/96437: ICE-on-invalid-code error recovery.

[Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>]

On 3/9/22 14:35, Roger Sayle wrote:
> 
> Hi Jason,
> 
> Very many thanks for your reviews/approvals of these ICE-on-invalid-code fixes.
> 
>>> +  if (TREE_VALUE (new_parm) != error_mark_node)
>>> +    DECL_VIRTUAL_P (TREE_VALUE (new_parm)) = true;
>>
>> Hmm, I wonder about returning early if there was an error, but this is fine as is.
> 
> The challenge here is the need to perform "current_binding_level = entry_scope;"
> required to restore the parser state before returning.  Now that the parser is
> written in C++, we could (in theory) make more use of destructors to automatically
> restore/pop state, making it safe(r) to just "return error_mark_node" immediately
> in more places.

Yes, e.g.

auto ov = make_temp_override (current_binding_level);

>>> +/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
>>
>> This also seems unneeded for this test.
> 
> Doh! Force of habit (from working in the middle-end).  Consider this removed
> from all the test cases below.
> 
> Is there any chance I could ask you to also look at these (that probably slipped
> through the net), though PR 84964 might require a nod from a middle-end maintainer.
> 
> PR c++/39751: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590951.html
> PR c++/84964: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590961.html
> PR c++/95999: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590653.html
> PR c++/96442: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590716.html

Will do.

Jason