Hi,
On 10/31/2012 02:50 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/30/2012 07:44 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
straightforward fix. The below, which regtests fine, simply acts on any
MULT_EXPR as TYPE_SIZE, which I think should be fine, but, in case the
idea is basically Ok, we could also consider the more complex but more
sophisticated variably_modified_type_p?
I think I'd use EXPR_P rather than check for a particular tree code.
Yes, I also wondered whether that would be better. The below also passes
testing.
Thanks,
Paolo.
/////////////////
Index: testsuite/g++.dg/ext/vla13.C
===================================================================
--- testsuite/g++.dg/ext/vla13.C (revision 0)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/ext/vla13.C (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+// PR c++/54583
+// { dg-options "-Wunused-value" }
+
+void fred()
+{
+ int n=10;
+ double (*x)[n];
+}
Index: cp/tree.c
===================================================================
--- cp/tree.c (revision 193033)
+++ cp/tree.c (working copy)
@@ -824,6 +824,10 @@ build_cplus_array_type (tree elt_type, tree index_
}
}
+ /* Avoid spurious warnings with VLAs (c++/54583). */
+ if (TYPE_SIZE (t) && EXPR_P (TYPE_SIZE (t)))
+ TREE_NO_WARNING (TYPE_SIZE (t)) = 1;
+
/* Push these needs up so that initialization takes place
more easily. */
TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING (t)
