https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Feb 25 15:01:01 2019
New Revision: 269188
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269188&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89285
* g++.dg/cpp1y/constexpr-89285-2.C: New test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.3 |8.4
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The above commit just brings 9.x into the similar state as 8.x on this
testcase, thus it is ice-on-valid.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Feb 21 21:21:25 2019
New Revision: 269078
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269078&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89285
* builtins.c (fold_builtin_arith_overflow):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45752
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45752&action=edit
gcc9-pr89285.patch
Updated untested patch for the constexpr evaluation on pre-folding trees.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45666|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45671
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45671&action=edit
gcc9-pr89285-wip.patch
Updated version that handles the above mentioned C++ stmt trees.
That said, there are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45667
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45667&action=edit
gcc9-pr89285-wip.patch
Updated patch to address 1). For 2), I guess we need to handle e.g.
CLEANUP_STMT, IF_S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45666
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45666&action=edit
gcc9-pr89285-wip.patch
Non-working WIP.
I've tried this, thinking that we don't really need to duplicate decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> + /* Preserve REINTERPRET_CAST_P. */
> + if (code == NOP_EXPR && REINTERPRET_CAST_P (org_x))
> + {
> + if (TREE_CODE (x) == NOP_EXPR && REINT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I'll try to copy & adjust (mostly kill almost everything) copy_tree_body_r and
use that in register_constexpr_fundef. As we don't need to remap decls or
types,
I think we just need copy_statement_list for S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ah, so one problem is that while we save the inline bodies of functions before
cp_fold_function, cp_fold_function is destructive and clobbers the saved copy.
cp_fold itself is (hopefully) not destructive and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Bisected that to the finish_id_expression change, reverting the penultimate and
antepenultimate hunk of
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/cp/semantics.c?limit_changes=0&r1=267272&r2=267271&pathrev=267
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Though, I wonder if something isn't wrong with the r267272 commit, I'd have
thought that constexpr evaluation should be done on the pre-cp_folded bodies
and cp_fold could be removing REINTERPRET_CAST_Ps.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89285
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
CC|
17 matches
Mail list logo
