OK, thanks.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 04:10:20PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 02:11:27PM -0500, Ja
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 04:10:20PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 02:11:27PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Marek Polacek
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 02:11:27PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>> > This is a similar problem to 83116: we'd cached a constexp
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:37 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 02:11:27PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > This is a similar problem to 83116: we'd cached a constexpr call, but
>> > after a
>> > store the result had become
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 02:11:27PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > This is a similar problem to 83116: we'd cached a constexpr call, but after
> > a
> > store the result had become invalid, yet we used the wrong result again when
> > encount
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> This is a similar problem to 83116: we'd cached a constexpr call, but after a
> store the result had become invalid, yet we used the wrong result again when
> encountering the same call later. This resulted in evaluating a THROW_EXPR
> which
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:16:39PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> This is a similar problem to 83116: we'd cached a constexpr call, but after a
> store the result had become invalid, yet we used the wrong result again when
> encountering the same call later. This resulted in evaluating a THROW_EXPR
This is a similar problem to 83116: we'd cached a constexpr call, but after a
store the result had become invalid, yet we used the wrong result again when
encountering the same call later. This resulted in evaluating a THROW_EXPR
which doesn't work. Details in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu