On 02/11/2016 02:44 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 01:56:09PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 02/11/2016 11:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
+ && !integer_zerop (tree_strip_nop_conversions (op1)))
Maybe cp_fold rather than tree_strip_nop_conversions?
Is it safe to call cp_fully_fold (typeck.c only calls it by that name,
not cp_fold) on perhaps type or value dependent argument?
In a template cp_fold does nothing, so it's safe but won't warn until
instantiation time.
OK either way.
Jason
