Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 60047

2014-02-12 Thread Jason Merrill
On 02/06/2014 02:59 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: - if (vec_safe_is_empty (vbases)) + if (vbases == NULL) vec_safe_is_empty is still more correct here. The rest of the patch is OK. Jason

[Ping] Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 60047

2014-02-11 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, the last version of this work is unreviewed, should be rather straightforward... Paolo.

Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 60047

2014-02-06 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, On 02/05/2014 10:28 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 02/05/2014 11:19 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: if (vec_safe_is_empty (vbases)) /* No virtual bases to worry about. */; else if (!assign_p) { if (constexpr_p) *constexpr_p = false; *constexpr_p should be false for a

Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 60047

2014-02-05 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, On 02/04/2014 12:51 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, thus I tried to have a look to this issue, while experiencing some weird problems with the debugger, which slowed me down a lot. I have been able to figure out that we don't seem to actively set constexpr_p to true anywhere in

Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 60047

2014-02-05 Thread Jason Merrill
On 02/05/2014 11:19 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: if (vec_safe_is_empty (vbases)) /* No virtual bases to worry about. */; else if (!assign_p) { if (constexpr_p) *constexpr_p = false; *constexpr_p should be false for a constructor of a class with virtual bases,

[C++ Patch/RFC] PR 60047

2014-02-04 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, thus I tried to have a look to this issue, while experiencing some weird problems with the debugger, which slowed me down a lot. I have been able to figure out that we don't seem to actively set constexpr_p to true anywhere in implicitly_declare_fn (besides the unrelated case of