On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:11 PM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi David, Patrick, > > On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 18:33:46 +0200 > Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:24:06 -0400 > > Patrick Palka <ppa...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 7:26 PM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via > > > Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.cc b/gcc/cp/tree.cc > > > > index 131b212ff73..19dfb3ed782 100644 > > > > --- a/gcc/cp/tree.cc > > > > +++ b/gcc/cp/tree.cc > > > > @@ -1173,7 +1173,7 @@ build_cplus_array_type (tree elt_type, tree > > > > index_type, int dependent) > > > > } > > > > > > > > /* Avoid spurious warnings with VLAs (c++/54583). */ > > > > - if (TYPE_SIZE (t) && EXPR_P (TYPE_SIZE (t))) > > > > + if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (TYPE_SIZE (t))) > > > > > > Hmm, this change seems undesirable... > > > > mhm, yes that is misleading. I'll prepare a patch to revert this. > > Let me have a look if there were other such CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P changes > > that we'd want to revert. > > Sorry for that! > I'd revert the hunk above and the one in gcc-rich-location.cc > (maybe_range_label_for_tree_type_mismatch::get_text), please see > attached. Bootstrap running, ok for trunk if it passes?
LGTM! > > thanks,
