Yes, also ok with that change. On Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 10:22 AM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 09:20:48AM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc > > +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc > > @@ -4566,19 +4566,18 @@ cxx_eval_bit_cast (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, > tree t, bool *non_constant_p, > > static tree > > cxx_eval_logical_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree t, > > tree bailout_value, tree continue_value, > > - bool lval, > > - bool *non_constant_p, bool *overflow_p) > > + bool, bool *non_constant_p, bool *overflow_p) > > Wouldn't it be better to remove the unused lval argument from > cxx_eval_logical_expression and adjust the 2 callers? > > Jakub > >
