On 10/10/2013 03:31 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 10/10/2013 08:26 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/10/2013 08:33 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ expr_type = TREE_TYPE (expr) = cp_build_qualified_type
+ (TREE_TYPE (expr), cp_type_quals (TREE_TYPE (probe_type)));
Won't that end up being the same as the contents of expr_type before
this statement? Can we just remove this assignment?
Sorry. Having figured out where the problem was, I messed up very badly
when I prepared the actual patch for submission. The below makes much
more sense to me.
+ expr_type = TREE_TYPE (probe_type);
Again, won't that set expr_type to the value it already had? I'd prefer
to just have a comment that we're leaving it alone.
Jason
