>> @@ -15402,6 +15450,8 @@ tsubst_decl (tree t, tree args, tsubst_flags_t
>> complain,
>> gcc_checking_assert (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (TREE_TYPE (ve))
>>== TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type));
>> SET_DECL_VALUE_EXPR (r, ve);
>> +
On Monday, December 4th, 2023 at 9:35 PM, waffl3x
wrote:
>
>
> >> @@ -15402,6 +15450,8 @@ tsubst_decl (tree t, tree args, tsubst_flags_t
> >> complain,
>
> > > gcc_checking_assert (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (TREE_TYPE (ve))
> > > == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type));
> > > SET_DECL_VALUE_EXPR (r,
On Monday, December 4th, 2023 at 9:39 PM, waffl3x
wrote:
> On Monday, December 4th, 2023 at 9:35 PM, waffl3x waff...@protonmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > @@ -15402,6 +15450,8 @@ tsubst_decl (tree t, tree args, tsubst_flags_t
> > > > complain,
> >
> > > > gcc_checking_assert
On 12/1/23 20:31, waffl3x wrote:
On Friday, December 1st, 2023 at 9:52 AM, Jason Merrill
wrote:
On 12/1/23 01:02, waffl3x wrote:
I ran into another issue while devising tests for redeclarations of
xobj member functions as static member functions and vice versa. I am
pretty sure by the
On Friday, December 1st, 2023 at 9:52 AM, Jason Merrill
wrote:
>
>
> On 12/1/23 01:02, waffl3x wrote:
>
> > I ran into another issue while devising tests for redeclarations of
> > xobj member functions as static member functions and vice versa. I am
> > pretty sure by the literal
On 12/1/23 01:02, waffl3x wrote:
I ran into another issue while devising tests for redeclarations of
xobj member functions as static member functions and vice versa. I am
pretty sure by the literal wording of the standard, this is well formed.
template
concept Constrain = true;
struct S {
I ran into another issue while devising tests for redeclarations of
xobj member functions as static member functions and vice versa. I am
pretty sure by the literal wording of the standard, this is well formed.
template
concept Constrain = true;
struct S {
void f(this auto, Constrain auto) {};
On 11/30/23 01:36, waffl3x wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29th, 2023 at 10:00 PM, Jason Merrill
wrote:
On 11/27/23 00:35, waffl3x wrote:
+ val = handle_arg(TREE_VALUE (parm),
Missing space.
Is there a script I can use for this so I'm not wasting your time on
little typos like this one?
On Wednesday, November 29th, 2023 at 10:00 PM, Jason Merrill
wrote:
>
>
> On 11/27/23 00:35, waffl3x wrote:
>
> > I think this is cleaned up enough to be presentable. Bootstrapped but
> > not tested but I don't think I changed anything substantial. I am
> > running tests right now and
On 11/27/23 00:35, waffl3x wrote:
I think this is cleaned up enough to be presentable. Bootstrapped but
not tested but I don't think I changed anything substantial. I am
running tests right now and will report if anything fails. I have not
fixed the problem in tsubst_lambda_expr that we talked
This fixes the const bug. I haven't bootstrapped and tested beyond my
own tests yet but this does it. I don't know if this is the right way
to fix this yet, but I think it's pretty close. I'll see if I can make
a better write up tomorrow, but it seems to me that since we never
cared about
On Sunday, November 26th, 2023 at 7:40 PM, Jason Merrill
wrote:
>
>
> On 11/26/23 20:44, waffl3x wrote:
>
> > > > > > The other problem I'm having is
> > > > > >
> > > > > > auto f0 = [n = 5, ](this auto const&){ n = 10; };
> > > > > > This errors just fine, the lambda is unconditionally
12 matches
Mail list logo
