Re: [C++ Patch] PR 88969 ("[9 Regression] ICE in build_op_delete_call, at cp/call.c:6509")

On 1/25/19 6:20 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, On 24/01/19 23:21, Jason Merrill wrote: On 1/24/19 2:53 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, as far as I can see this ICE on invalid points to a substantive, if minor, weakness of our implementation of the destroying operator delete facility: we aren't

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 88969 ("[9 Regression] ICE in build_op_delete_call, at cp/call.c:6509")

Hi, On 24/01/19 23:21, Jason Merrill wrote: On 1/24/19 2:53 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, as far as I can see this ICE on invalid points to a substantive, if minor, weakness of our implementation of the destroying operator delete facility: we aren't implementing the bits, per 7.6.2.5/(10.1),

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 88969 ("[9 Regression] ICE in build_op_delete_call, at cp/call.c:6509")

On 1/24/19 2:53 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, as far as I can see this ICE on invalid points to a substantive, if minor, weakness of our implementation of the destroying operator delete facility: we aren't implementing the bits, per 7.6.2.5/(10.1), about destroying operator delete having

[C++ Patch] PR 88969 ("[9 Regression] ICE in build_op_delete_call, at cp/call.c:6509")

Hi, as far as I can see this ICE on invalid points to a substantive, if minor, weakness of our implementation of the destroying operator delete facility: we aren't implementing the bits, per 7.6.2.5/(10.1), about destroying operator delete having precedence over any other operator delete.