Re: [C++ Patch] PR 51219

2014-02-01 Thread Paolo Carlini
On 01/31/2014 11:00 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 01/28/2014 01:37 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: ... by the way, I don't understand why we are appending the constructor at all for the unnamed bit-field?!? Eg, what about the below? I agree, it doesn't seem necessary; output_constructor deals fine with

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 51219

2014-01-31 Thread Jason Merrill
On 01/28/2014 01:37 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: ... by the way, I don't understand why we are appending the constructor at all for the unnamed bit-field?!? Eg, what about the below? I agree, it doesn't seem necessary; output_constructor deals fine with a sparse CONSTRUCTOR. This patch is OK. J

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 51219

2014-01-28 Thread Paolo Carlini
... by the way, I don't understand why we are appending the constructor at all for the unnamed bit-field?!? Eg, what about the below? Thanks, Paolo. Index: cp/typeck2.c === --- cp/typeck2.c(revision 207

[C++ Patch] PR 51219

2014-01-27 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, as explained by Richard in the audit trail of the duplicate c++/54808, the problem here is that the type checking code notices that we are initializing the unnamed bit-field with a bare integer_zero_node. Calling here too cp_convert_and_check works. Tested x86_64-linux (probably not wort