http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59886
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59886
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 24 16:47:54 2014
New Revision: 207051
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207051root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/59886
PR c++/59659
* typeck2.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59886
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jan 24 17:09:07 2014
New Revision: 207052
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=207052root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/59886
PR c++/59659
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59886
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59886
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Even the const there isn't needed.
Anyway, the bug I think is that split_nonconstant_init_1 doesn't handle
RANGE_EXPR field_index in the if (TREE_CODE (value) == CONSTRUCTOR) case
(it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59886
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31900
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31900action=edit
gcc49-pr59886.patch
Untested partial patch. I believe we want to increment the
