On 9/19/23 20:55, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 05:25:20PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/1/23 08:22, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 04:28:18PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/29/23 09:35, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
This is an attempt to improve the constexpr
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 05:25:20PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 9/1/23 08:22, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 04:28:18PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 8/29/23 09:35, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
> > > > This is an attempt to improve the constexpr machinery's handling of
> >
On 9/1/23 08:22, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 04:28:18PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/29/23 09:35, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
This is an attempt to improve the constexpr machinery's handling of
union lifetime by catching more cases that cause UB. Is this approach
OK?
I'd
Ping for https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/629084.html
-- >8 --
This patch adds checks for attempting to change the active member of a
union by methods other than a member access expression.
To be able to properly distinguish `*() = ` from `u.a = `, this
patch redoes the
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 04:28:18PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/29/23 09:35, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
> > This is an attempt to improve the constexpr machinery's handling of
> > union lifetime by catching more cases that cause UB. Is this approach
> > OK?
> >
> > I'd also like some feedback
