------- Comment #3 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-17 12:30 ------- Created an attachment (id=20678) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20678&action=view) Candidate patch
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 07:25:18AM -0000, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > That said, it would be good to find out why we don't warn in that > case; for [M_CONST + 6] we do warn. I think we don't warn in that case because M_CONST in the expression M_CONST + 6, M_CONST is an rvalue use and we recognize it as such via default_conversion that should be called on the arguments of the + expression. We fail to recognize the use of [M_CONST], because M_CONST gets folded into it's value without us marking that folding as an rvalue use. I am thus testing the attached patch. The reason why the patch seems convoluted is that I don't want to mark a dependant value as a rvalue use. I believe only full instantiations should be marked. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44108
