On 01/02/2012 02:49 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 01/01/2012 08:10 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
The analysis is confirmed by the fact that the rather heavy handed
patchlet which I'm attaching, which uses copy_node to avoid the
corruption, "works". How do we normally handle this kind of situation?
In most cases, trees are unshared at instantiation time, but that
doesn't apply to constants like this. The patch is OK.
Oh I see, thanks. Then I'm going to properly test it, etc, and if
everything goes well, I'll post what I will actually commit.
Thanks again,
Paolo.
