https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89652
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89652
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar 14 08:13:09 2019
New Revision: 269671
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269671&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/89652
* constexpr.c (struct constexpr_ctx): Change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89652
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89652
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The ICE on this testcase started with my r269078.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89652
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 45937
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45937&action=edit
gcc9-pr89652.patch
IMHO either we need to do what this patch does, i.e. only remove SAVE_EXPRs
that are in new_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89652
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Reduced testcase:
template constexpr auto foo (T &e) { return e.foo (); }
template constexpr auto bar (T &e) { return foo (e); }
template struct A { typedef T a[N]; };
template struct B {
typedef T *b;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89652
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
