https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113599
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113599
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fd620bd3351c6b9821c299035ed17e655d7954b5
commit r14-8439-gfd620bd3351c6b9821c299035ed17e655d7954b5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113599
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
D'oh, sorry for the breakage.
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> If no checking is needed, then it could be just datum = build_nop (ptype,
> datum);
> if we don't want folding.
Makes sense to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113599
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113599
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The problem is in that typeck2.cc change:
- datum = fold_build_pointer_plus (fold_convert (ptype, datum),
component);
+ datum = cp_convert (ptype, datum, complain);
+ if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113599
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113599
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-01-25
Target Milestone|---
