https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98326
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So, shouldn't either the cp/call.c change have been:
- && ! TREE_ADDRESSABLE (TREE_TYPE (arg)))
+ && ! TREE_ADDRESSABLE (TREE_TYPE (arg))
+ && simple_empty_class_p (TREE_TYPE (arg), arg, INIT_EXPR))
rather than
- && ! TREE_ADDRESSABLE (TREE_TYPE (arg)))
+ && simple_empty_class_p (TREE_TYPE (arg), arg, INIT_EXPR))
so it would don't try to handle TREE_ADDRESSABLE classes this way?
Or perhaps simple_empty_class_p should punt for TREE_ADDRESSABLE types?
In any case, passing CONSTRUCTOR with TREE_ADDRESSABLE type directly as
argument to function call leads to creating temporaries of the type, which
aren't allowed.
