https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov ---
Another possible compromise is to add 'bool for_warnings = false' argument to
maybe_constant_value, store it along with the reduced tree in cv_cache (perhaps
even by setting a flag on the tree itself?),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That said, if the -W* does't affect code generation goal is very important and
we don't find any other way, perhaps the price to pay for that is acceptable.
Even the PR86569 patch isn't without cost (in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is the costly variant, the already slow C++ FE will need to compute and
instantiate a lot of things that aren't really needed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
cp_fully_fold smells like it could have side-effects as well, of course. Yeah,
it calls maybe_constant_value as well ;)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Like with
diff --git a/gcc/cp/typeck.c b/gcc/cp/typeck.c
index 1335da5e9bc..aaa56697f29 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck.c
@@ -5322,7 +5322,6 @@ cp_build_binary_op (location_t location,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Yeah, I think it is a dup. There are many other cases where we call
> maybe_constant_value for some warning only, and we assume it is a safe thing
> to do.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86586
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
