On 10/09/2013 01:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Perhaps DECL_TEMPLATE_INFO check could also be less expensive to be done
before calling decl_maybe_constant_var_p or undeduced_auto_decl ?
Sure.
+ DECL_LOCAL_FUNCTION_P (fndecl) = 1;
This should be set by pushdecl_maybe_friend_1, so I don
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 10:47:22AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 07:02 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >duplicates anywhere, but during error diagnostics. Without those two decl.c
> >hunks (either of them), pushdecl will sometimes return a different decl from
> >the original or error_mark
On 10/07/2013 07:02 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
duplicates anywhere, but during error diagnostics. Without those two decl.c
hunks (either of them), pushdecl will sometimes return a different decl from
the original or error_mark_node, and the original fndecl passed to it has
ggc_free called on it, t
Hi!
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 07:45:03AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
So, for things that worked fine for me, I'm attaching two patches
(W050b and W051a), do they look ok to you? The rest causes issues, all
of them on gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/gomp/udr-3.C testcase, see below.
> On 09/20/2013 12:25 PM,
On 09/20/2013 12:25 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
In templates the UDRs are always FUNCTION_DECLs in classes or
at function block scope, the above one liner was I believe for the latter,
where without it duplicate_decls was returning incorrectly 0; the UDRs
from mismatching templates would actually ne
Hi!
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:00:41PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
Thanks for the review, I'll try to get to most of that next week.
> On 09/12/2013 04:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >- if (t1 != t2)
> >+ if (t1 != t2 && !DECL_OMP_DECLARE_REDUCTION_P (newdecl))
> > return 0;
>
> Wh
On 09/12/2013 04:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
- if (t1 != t2)
+ if (t1 != t2 && !DECL_OMP_DECLARE_REDUCTION_P (newdecl))
return 0;
What's the theory here? Why should decls_match return true for
reductions with mismatching templates?
+ && ! (DECL_OMP_DECLARE_REDUCTI
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:55:44AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> What is still missing is accessibility checking, in the attached udr5.C
> I'd assume we should error on the dg-error marked lines (because one of the
> UDRs is protected and another one is private). Not sure what I'm doing
> wrong th
