From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18212 invoked by alias); 14 May 2011 22:52:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 18201 invoked by uid 22791); 14 May 2011 22:52:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 May 2011 22:52:03 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4EMq2UY003561 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 14 May 2011 18:52:02 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn-113-120.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.120]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4EMq26C015302; Sat, 14 May 2011 18:52:02 -0400 Message-ID: <4DCF0791.102@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 15:43:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ville Voutilainen CC: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] C++0x, implement final on classes References: <87liyav7hf.wl%ville@ville-laptop> <4DCD6E7C.4070302@redhat.com> <4DCD74E0.9090303@redhat.com> <87r582w6w7.wl%ville@ville-laptop> <87liy9nxf1.wl%ville@ville-laptop> <4DCEB0A1.8040200@redhat.com> <4DCEC6B0.2000905@redhat.com> <4DCF0715.4080909@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4DCF0715.4080909@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg01066.txt.bz2 On 05/14/2011 06:49 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 05/14/2011 02:19 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote: >> Cool, thanks! I'm not quite sure whether there are ambiguities in the >> case >> of elaborate-specifiers, but I suppose those can be fixed later. > > Good point. In the case that > !cp_parser_next_token_starts_class_definition_p, we should rewind to > before what we parsed as virt-specifiers. cp_lexer_token_position and cp_lexer_set_token_position should be useful for this. Jason