On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 05/23/2012 04:54 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Paolo Carlini
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> some years ago Martin lamented that we weren't consistently warning about
>>> deleting member arrays vs arrays
OK. We shouldn't need to worry about null type, since templates are
handled at the top of the function.
Jason
On 05/23/2012 06:34 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/22/2012 09:25 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
some years ago Martin lamented that we weren't consistently warning
about deleting member arrays vs arrays.
I wonder why we look at the code of exp at all. Surely deleting any
expression with array type
On 05/23/2012 04:54 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
some years ago Martin lamented that we weren't consistently warning about
deleting member arrays vs arrays. A fix seems simple and passes bootstrap
and testing on x86_64-linux. Note I have
On 05/22/2012 09:25 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
some years ago Martin lamented that we weren't consistently warning
about deleting member arrays vs arrays.
I wonder why we look at the code of exp at all. Surely deleting any
expression with array type is questionable.
Jason
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> some years ago Martin lamented that we weren't consistently warning about
> deleting member arrays vs arrays. A fix seems simple and passes bootstrap
> and testing on x86_64-linux. Note I have to change D to E because dump_decl
> cann
Hi,
some years ago Martin lamented that we weren't consistently warning
about deleting member arrays vs arrays. A fix seems simple and passes
bootstrap and testing on x86_64-linux. Note I have to change D to E
because dump_decl cannot cope with COMPONENT_REFs.
Thanks,
Paolo.
///
