On 09/10/19 16:29 -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 11:01:39AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:On 07/10/19 14:56 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 10/7/19 1:42 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > @@ -7401,8 +7432,20 @@ convert_like_real (conversion *convs, tree expr, tree fn, int argnum, > > error_at (loc, "cannot bind non-const lvalue reference of " > > "type %qH to an rvalue of type %qI", totype, extype); > > else if (!reference_compatible_p (TREE_TYPE (totype), extype)) > > - error_at (loc, "binding reference of type %qH to %qI " > > - "discards qualifiers", totype, extype); > > + { > > + /* If we're converting from T[] to T[N], don't talk > > + about discarding qualifiers. (Converting from T[N] to > > + T[] is allowed by P0388R4.) */ > > + if (TREE_CODE (extype) == ARRAY_TYPE > > + && TYPE_DOMAIN (extype) == NULL_TREE > > + && TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (totype)) == ARRAY_TYPE > > + && TYPE_DOMAIN (TREE_TYPE (totype)) != NULL_TREE) > > + error_at (loc, "binding reference of type %qH to %qI " > > + "discards array bounds", totype, extype); > > If we're converting to T[N], that would be adding, not discarding, array > bounds?I don't think the diagnostic would be very good if we say "adds array bounds" though. How about being consistent with the existing error for similar cases? a.cc:4:17: error: invalid initialization of reference of type ‘int (&)[3]’ from expression of type ‘int []’ int (&b)[3] = a; ^In my latest patch the error message reads "cannot bind reference of type T to U due to different array bounds". It'd be trivial to adjust it if anyone hates that.
Works for me.
