On 1/8/24 12:04, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 05:32:37PM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I;m not sure about this, there was clearly a reason I did it the way it is,
but perhaps that reasoning became obsolete -- something about an existing
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 05:32:37PM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > I;m not sure about this, there was clearly a reason I did it the way it is,
> > but perhaps that reasoning became obsolete -- something about an existing
> > declaration and reading in
On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 05:32:37PM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> I;m not sure about this, there was clearly a reason I did it the way it is,
> but perhaps that reasoning became obsolete -- something about an existing
> declaration and reading in a definition maybe?
>
> nathan
So I took a bit of
I;m not sure about this, there was clearly a reason I did it the way it is, but
perhaps that reasoning became obsolete -- something about an existing
declaration and reading in a definition maybe?
nathan
On 11/22/23 06:33, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-g
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. I don't have write
access.
-- >8 --
When merging duplicate instantiations of function templates, currently
read_function_def overwrites the arguments with that of the existing
duplicate. This is problematic, however, since this means that the
PAR
