Ok, thanks.
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019, 6:26 PM Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 08:37:14PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Ok if that passes?
>
> Which it did.
>
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 08:37:14PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Ok if that passes?
Which it did.
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 05:08:07PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/18/19 6:52 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:40:39PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 8/16/19 5:11 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:21:25PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > >
On 8/18/19 6:52 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:40:39PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/16/19 5:11 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:21:25PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/15/19 5:34 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 02:50:13PM -0400,
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:40:39PM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/16/19 5:11 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:21:25PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 8/15/19 5:34 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 02:50:13PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > >
On 8/16/19 5:11 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:21:25PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/15/19 5:34 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 02:50:13PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:25 PM Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:21:25PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/15/19 5:34 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 02:50:13PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:25 PM Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 11:06:17AM -0400, Jason
On 8/15/19 5:34 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 02:50:13PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:25 PM Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 11:06:17AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/6/19 3:20 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 02:50:13PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:25 PM Marek Polacek wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 11:06:17AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 8/6/19 3:20 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 03:54:19PM -0400, Jason Merrill
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:25 PM Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 11:06:17AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 8/6/19 3:20 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 03:54:19PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > On 7/31/19 3:26 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > > One of
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 11:06:17AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 8/6/19 3:20 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 03:54:19PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 7/31/19 3:26 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > One of the features of constexpr is that it doesn't allow UB; and such
On 8/6/19 3:20 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 03:54:19PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/31/19 3:26 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
One of the features of constexpr is that it doesn't allow UB; and such UB must
be detected at compile-time. So running your code in a context that
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 09:38:35PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 31/07/19 21:26, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > +static void
> > +modifying_const_object_error (tree expr, tree obj)
> > +{
> > + location_t loc = cp_expr_loc_or_loc (expr, input_location);
>
> Nit: now we have
Hi,
On 31/07/19 21:26, Marek Polacek wrote:
+static void
+modifying_const_object_error (tree expr, tree obj)
+{
+ location_t loc = cp_expr_loc_or_loc (expr, input_location);
Nit: now we have cp_expr_loc_input_loc
Paolo.
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 03:54:19PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 7/31/19 3:26 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > One of the features of constexpr is that it doesn't allow UB; and such UB
> > must
> > be detected at compile-time. So running your code in a context that
> > requires
> > a constant
On 7/31/19 3:26 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
One of the features of constexpr is that it doesn't allow UB; and such UB must
be detected at compile-time. So running your code in a context that requires
a constant expression should ensure that the code in question is free of UB.
In effect, constexpr
One of the features of constexpr is that it doesn't allow UB; and such UB must
be detected at compile-time. So running your code in a context that requires
a constant expression should ensure that the code in question is free of UB.
In effect, constexpr can serve as a sanitizer. E.g. this
17 matches
Mail list logo
