https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 16 12:46:12 2018
New Revision: 258593
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258593=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/79937
PR c++/82410
* tree.h (TARGET_EXPR_NO_ELIDE):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43577|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill ---
*** Bug 82410 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
struct Y
{
static Y bar (Y y) { return y; }
int i;
int n = bar (Y{2,i}).m + bar {Y{2,i,i}).n;
int m = i;
};
is rejected, so I can't find a counter-example where PLACEHOLDER_EXPRs for
different
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> > E.g. could we walk into TARGET_EXPRs that have TARGET_EXPR_INITIAL
> > AGGR_INIT_EXPR, but avoid those that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> E.g. could we walk into TARGET_EXPRs that have TARGET_EXPR_INITIAL
> AGGR_INIT_EXPR, but avoid those that have TARGET_EXPR_INITIAL a CONSTRUCTOR,
> or a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43578
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43578=edit
gcc8-pr79937.patch
Actually, seems TREE_HAS_CONSTRUCTOR is set on a CONSTRUCTOR only by
finish_compound_literal. So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The CONSTRUCTORS in TARGET_EXPR in the pr79937-{1,2,3}.C testcases have all
CONSTRUCTOR_IS_DIRECT_INIT and TREE_HAS_CONSTRUCTOR set, while nsdmi13.C
doesn't.
Does any of those matter?
In the nsdmi13.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That said, I've tried:
--- gcc/cp/semantics.c.jj 2018-03-06 08:01:37.851883447 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/semantics.c 2018-03-06 15:19:27.685013764 +0100
@@ -2814,6 +2814,11 @@ finish_compound_literal (tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43577
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43577=edit
gcc8-pr79937.patch
My #c8 patch doesn't work at all, but this one at least fixes the two testcases
(but indeed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jason at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|
--- Comment #7 from Paolo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|mpolacek at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79937
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
---
18 matches
Mail list logo
