On 8/2/23 12:51, Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:11 PM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
<rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi David, Patrick,
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 18:33:46 +0200
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:24:06 -0400
Patrick Palka <ppa...@redhat.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 7:26 PM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via
Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.cc b/gcc/cp/tree.cc
index 131b212ff73..19dfb3ed782 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/tree.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/tree.cc
@@ -1173,7 +1173,7 @@ build_cplus_array_type (tree elt_type, tree index_type,
int dependent)
}
/* Avoid spurious warnings with VLAs (c++/54583). */
- if (TYPE_SIZE (t) && EXPR_P (TYPE_SIZE (t)))
+ if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (TYPE_SIZE (t)))
Hmm, this change seems undesirable...
mhm, yes that is misleading. I'll prepare a patch to revert this.
Let me have a look if there were other such CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P changes
that we'd want to revert.
Sorry for that!
I'd revert the hunk above and the one in gcc-rich-location.cc
(maybe_range_label_for_tree_type_mismatch::get_text), please see
attached. Bootstrap running, ok for trunk if it passes?
LGTM!
Yes, OK.
Jason
