On 9/11/19 4:15 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
This ICEs since r267272 - more location wrapper nodes, but not because we can't
cope with new location wrappers, but because that commit introduced a call to
maybe_constant_value in cp_build_array_ref. In this testcase we call it with
f
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:08:43AM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On 12/09/19 11:03, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 11/09/19 23:15, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > --- gcc/cp/pt.c
> > > +++ gcc/cp/pt.c
> > > @@ -26709,7 +26709,7 @@ build_non_dependent_expr (tree expr)
> > >
Hi again,
On 12/09/19 11:03, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 11/09/19 23:15, Marek Polacek wrote:
--- gcc/cp/pt.c
+++ gcc/cp/pt.c
@@ -26709,7 +26709,7 @@ build_non_dependent_expr (tree expr)
if (TREE_CODE (expr) == COND_EXPR)
return build3 (COND_EXPR,
TREE_TYPE (expr),
-
Hi,
On 11/09/19 23:15, Marek Polacek wrote:
--- gcc/cp/pt.c
+++ gcc/cp/pt.c
@@ -26709,7 +26709,7 @@ build_non_dependent_expr (tree expr)
if (TREE_CODE (expr) == COND_EXPR)
return build3 (COND_EXPR,
TREE_TYPE (expr),
- TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0),
+
This ICEs since r267272 - more location wrapper nodes, but not because we can't
cope with new location wrappers, but because that commit introduced a call to
maybe_constant_value in cp_build_array_ref. In this testcase we call it with
f (VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR("BAR")) ? 1 : 0
argument and that
