From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 53248 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2019 20:58:32 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 53238 invoked by uid 89); 10 Sep 2019 20:58:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 20:58:31 +0000 Received: from mail-qk1-f198.google.com (mail-qk1-f198.google.com [209.85.222.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CEE7C058CA4 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 20:58:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-f198.google.com with SMTP id a6so20360670qkl.10 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 13:58:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.116] (209-6-216-142.s141.c3-0.smr-cbr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcncustomer.com. [209.6.216.142]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g8sm11789259qta.67.2019.09.10.13.58.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Sep 2019 13:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: C++ PATCH for c++/91673 - ICE with noexcept in alias-declaration To: Marek Polacek Cc: GCC Patches References: <20190907203735.GE14737@redhat.com> <20190910182534.GK14737@redhat.com> From: Jason Merrill Message-ID: <7e0e714f-4e95-c934-7657-d449d35c4604@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 20:58:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190910182534.GK14737@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-09/txt/msg00695.txt.bz2 On 9/10/19 1:25 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > @@ -21870,10 +21873,16 @@ cp_parser_type_id_1 (cp_parser *parser, cp_parser_flags flags, > > /* There might or might not be an abstract declarator. */ > cp_parser_parse_tentatively (parser); > + /* Reset the flags, but remember if we should perform delayed parsing > + of noexcept-specifiers. */ > + if (flags & CP_PARSER_FLAGS_DELAY_NOEXCEPT) > + flags = CP_PARSER_FLAGS_DELAY_NOEXCEPT; > + else > + flags = CP_PARSER_FLAGS_NONE; Do we want/need to pass the flag through here? I would think that we don't, for the same reason we don't want to delay parsing in an alias. OK without this hunk. Jason