OK.
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/03/2017 16:57, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Paolo Carlini
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> As such, the broken declaration cannot be rejected by the code we have in
>>> finish_struct, something must happen
Hi,
On 10/03/2017 16:57, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
As such, the broken declaration cannot be rejected by the code we have in
finish_struct, something must happen earlier than that. It seems to me that
xref_tag_1 can be a good place, per the belo
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> As such, the broken declaration cannot be rejected by the code we have in
> finish_struct, something must happen earlier than that. It seems to me that
> xref_tag_1 can be a good place, per the below patchlet, which passes testing
> on x86_64
Hi,
if you like, this ICE is closely related to c++/60848, but occurs when
we don't have (yet) a broken definition of std::initializer_list, only a
declaration, which is nonetheless able to cause an ICE at the beginning
of build_list_conv, as called by implicit_conversion for the testcase at
