On 06/09/2011 04:06 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/09/2011 06:07 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> I tested on x86_64-linux the below patchlet for a long standing
>> accepts-invalid. Is it ok for mainline? Or do we want a different error
>> message? A somehow tighter check?
>
> The error message needs to say something about typedef being the 
> problem.  Maybe follow the pattern of the previous error, and say
>
>         error ("declaration of %qD as %<typedef%>", dname);
Right. Updated and retested. Is this variant Ok?

Thanks,
Paolo.

///////////////////////