On 10/8/23 21:03, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
Ping for https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/631203.html
+ && (TREE_CODE (t) == MODIFY_EXPR
+ /* Also check if initializations have implicit change of active
+member earlier up the access chain.
Ping for https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-September/631203.html
Rebased on top of current trunk and bootstrap + regtest on
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu now completed without errors.
-- >8 --
This patch adds checks for attempting to change the active member of a
union by methods other than
On Sat, 23 Sept 2023, 01:39 Nathaniel Shead via Libstdc++, <
libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> Now that bootstrap has finished, I have gotten regressions in the
> following libstdc++ tests:
>
> Running libstdc++:libstdc++-dg/conformance.exp ...
> FAIL: 20_util/bitset/access/constexpr.cc
Now that bootstrap has finished, I have gotten regressions in the
following libstdc++ tests:
Running libstdc++:libstdc++-dg/conformance.exp ...
FAIL: 20_util/bitset/access/constexpr.cc -std=gnu++23 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: 20_util/bitset/access/constexpr.cc -std=gnu++26 (test for excess
On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 02:21:15PM +0100, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 9/21/23 09:41, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
> > I've updated the error messages, and also fixed another bug I found
> > while retesting (value-initialised unions weren't considered to have any
> > active member yet).
> >
> >
