On 12/7/18 3:13 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2018-12-04 at 18:31 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 12/3/18 5:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/19/18 9:51 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
[...]
@@ -1058,6 +1058,9 @@ grokbitfield (const cp_declarator
*declarator,
return NULL_TREE;
}
+ if (width)
+ STRIP_ANY_LOCATION_WRAPPER (width);
Why is this needed? We should already be reducing width to an
unwrapped
constant value somewhere along the line.
"width" is coming from cp_parser_member_declaration, from:
/* Get the width of the bitfield. */
width = cp_parser_constant_expression (parser, false, NULL,
cxx_dialect >= cxx11);
and currently nothing is unwrapping the value. We presumably need to
unwrap (or fold?) it before it is stashed in
DECL_BIT_FIELD_REPRESENTATIVE (value).
Without stripping (or folding) here, we e.g. lose a warning and get this:
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/empty22.C -std=gnu++98 (test for warnings, line 15)
Why does that happen? check_bitfield_decl ought to handle the location
wrapper fine. That's where it gets folded.
@@ -656,6 +656,9 @@ add_capture (tree lambda, tree id, tree
orig_init, bool by_reference_p,
listmem = make_pack_expansion (member);
initializer = orig_init;
}
+
+ STRIP_ANY_LOCATION_WRAPPER (initializer);
Why is this needed? What cares about the tree codes of the capture
initializer?
This is used to populate LAMBDA_EXPR_CAPTURE_LIST. Without stripping,
we end up with wrapped VAR_DECLs, rather than the VAR_DECLs themselves,
Sure, that sounds fine.
and this confuses things later on, for example leading to:
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-type.C -std=c++14 (test for excess
errors)
PASS -> FAIL : g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-type.C -std=c++17 (test for excess
errors)
Confuses how?
Jason
