+2008-08-06 Douglas Gregor <doug.gregor@gmail.com>
+
+ PR c++/36460
+ * parser.c (cp_parser_template_argument): Don't assume that '>>'
+ following a type-id is an error when in C++0x mode.
+
2008-08-06 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <manu@gcc.gnu.org>
PR 26785
Therefore, we try a type-id first. */
cp_parser_parse_tentatively (parser);
argument = cp_parser_type_id (parser);
- /* If there was no error parsing the type-id but the next token is a '>>',
- we probably found a typo for '> >'. But there are type-id which are
- also valid expressions. For instance:
+ /* If there was no error parsing the type-id but the next token is a
+ '>>', our behavior depends on which dialect of C++ we're
+ parsing. In C++98, we probably found a typo for '> >'. But there
+ are type-id which are also valid expressions. For instance:
struct X { int operator >> (int); };
template <int V> struct Foo {};
Here 'X()' is a valid type-id of a function type, but the user just
wanted to write the expression "X() >> 5". Thus, we remember that we
found a valid type-id, but we still try to parse the argument as an
- expression to see what happens. */
+ expression to see what happens.
+
+ In C++0x, the '>>' will be considered two separate '>'
+ tokens. */
if (!cp_parser_error_occurred (parser)
+ && cxx_dialect == cxx98
&& cp_lexer_next_token_is (parser->lexer, CPP_RSHIFT))
{
maybe_type_id = true;
+2008-08-06 Douglas Gregor <doug.gregor@gmail.com>
+
+ PR c++/36460
+ * g++.dg/cpp0x/bracket3.C: Add another test case for the >>
+ warning under -Wc++0x-compat.
+ * g++.dg/cpp0x/bracket4.C: Add testcase for PR c++/36460.
+
2008-08-06 Kaveh R. Ghazi <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
* gcc.dg/Wcxx-compat-2.c: Adjust test for more warnings.