OK.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 02:35:08PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:18 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > This testcase breaks since r256550 because we end up trying to
>> > build_address of
>> > a CONSTRUCTOR, but th
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 02:35:08PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:18 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > This testcase breaks since r256550 because we end up trying to
> > build_address of
> > a CONSTRUCTOR, but that doesn't work because we hit
> > gcc_checking_assert (TREE_CO
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:18 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> This testcase breaks since r256550 because we end up trying to build_address
> of
> a CONSTRUCTOR, but that doesn't work because we hit
> gcc_checking_assert (TREE_CODE (t) != CONSTRUCTOR);
>
> finish_static_assert gets {} as 'condition'.
This testcase breaks since r256550 because we end up trying to build_address of
a CONSTRUCTOR, but that doesn't work because we hit
gcc_checking_assert (TREE_CODE (t) != CONSTRUCTOR);
finish_static_assert gets {} as 'condition'. In the testcase we have a
user-defined conversion, so {} should b
