On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
It seems better to do the following, so we still test for extra warnings:
-template void g (T) {}
-template auto g (T x) -> typename
enable_if::type {}
+template void g (T const&) {}
+template auto g (T const& x) -> typename
enable_if::type {}
I
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 01:59:37PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
--- testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr57509.C (revision 0)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr57509.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-std=c++11" } */
+
+t
Hi!
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 01:59:37PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> --- testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr57509.C(revision 0)
> +++ testsuite/g++.dg/ext/pr57509.C(revision 0)
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile } */
> +/* { dg-options "-std=c++11" } */
> +
> +template struct enable_if {};
> +tem
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 05:54:10PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
I don't really see why, as I am still calling c_build_vec_perm_expr
in the same cases, just possibly not exactly with the same arguments
(they don't g
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 05:54:10PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
I don't really see why, as I am still calling c_build_vec_perm_expr
in the same cases, just possibly not exactly with the same arguments
(they don't go through build_non_dependent_expr, but Ja
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 05:54:10PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> I don't really see why, as I am still calling c_build_vec_perm_expr
> in the same cases, just possibly not exactly with the same arguments
> (they don't go through build_non_dependent_expr, but Jason seemed to
> imply that it did not ma
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 05:24:45PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/27/2013 07:59 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
I assume I can't call directly c_build_vec_perm_expr on the original
arguments without build_non_depende
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 05:24:45PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> >On 06/27/2013 07:59 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >>I assume I can't call directly c_build_vec_perm_expr on the original
> >>arguments without build_non_dependent_expr?
> >
> >It looks like c_b
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/27/2013 07:59 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
I assume I can't call directly c_build_vec_perm_expr on the original
arguments without build_non_dependent_expr?
It looks like c_build_vec_perm_expr is safe to take the original arguments,
since it doesn't l
On 06/27/2013 07:59 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
I assume I can't call directly c_build_vec_perm_expr on the original
arguments without build_non_dependent_expr?
It looks like c_build_vec_perm_expr is safe to take the original
arguments, since it doesn't look deep into the expression. So either
wa
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/09/2013 07:09 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
+ arg0 = build_non_dependent_expr (arg0);
+ arg1 = build_non_dependent_expr (arg1);
+ arg2 = build_non_dependent_expr (arg2);
+}
+ return c_build_vec_perm_expr (loc, arg0, arg1, arg2, compla
On 06/09/2013 07:09 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
+ arg0 = build_non_dependent_expr (arg0);
+ arg1 = build_non_dependent_expr (arg1);
+ arg2 = build_non_dependent_expr (arg2);
+}
+ return c_build_vec_perm_expr (loc, arg0, arg1, arg2, complain & tf_error);
This is wrong; the places
Ping http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg00470.html
On Sun, 9 Jun 2013, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
when porting __builtin_shuffle from C to C++, I ignored all the C++
specificities and added some extra bugs. This should improve things a bit.
Bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
Hello,
when porting __builtin_shuffle from C to C++, I ignored all the C++
specificities and added some extra bugs. This should improve things a bit.
Bootstrap+testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu.
2013-06-10 Marc Glisse
PR c++/57509
gcc/c-family/
* c-common.h (c_build_vec_perm
14 matches
Mail list logo
