Re: C++ PATCH to implement P1064R0, Virtual Function Calls in Constant Expressions

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 01:19:50PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> +     /* We expect something in the form of &x.D.2103.D.2094; get x. */
> +     if (TREE_CODE (obj) != ADDR_EXPR)
> +       return t;

Shouldn't it then be a gcc_assert instead, or code like:
        if (TREE_CODE (obj) != ADDR_EXPR)
          {
            if (!ctx->quiet)
              error (...);
            *non_constant_p = true;
          }
to make it clear that we haven't handled it and don't consider it a constant
expression?

        Jakub