From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26575 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2002 19:16:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26539 invoked by uid 71); 6 Oct 2002 19:16:00 -0000 Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 12:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021006191600.26538.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Gabriel Dos Reis Subject: Re: c++/8067: g++ 3.2 internal error: Segmentation fault Reply-To: Gabriel Dos Reis X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00222.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/8067; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Gabriel Dos Reis To: Pop Sébastian Cc: Jason Merrill , Reichelt , gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, y_fedor@ciam.ru, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/8067: g++ 3.2 internal error: Segmentation fault Date: 06 Oct 2002 21:10:01 +0200 Pop Sébastian writes: | Hi Jason, | | On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 10:44:24AM +0100, Jason Merrill wrote: | > Thanks, but your patch is just a workaround; the problem is that we think | > we're dealing with a variable declared in the for-init-stmt, but we really | > aren't. | Ok, so we have to teach G++ that __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ is not a local declaration | in the FOR_INIT. More specifically, we have to teach the front-end about gracious handling of similar erroneous constructs in the for-init-statement. | What about the following patch for solving the PR following the first suggestion? Does it handle similar constructs where you replace __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ with another id-expression? I'm under the impression that it does not. -- Gaby