Re: [C++ Patch] PR 52599

2012-04-17 Thread Jason Merrill
OK. Jason

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 52599

2012-04-17 Thread Paolo Carlini
On 04/17/2012 05:35 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, I think build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers is a better place for that check, since it's already looking at the tree structure. Indeed. I'm finishing testing the below. Ok if it passes? ... uhm, actually like this seems more correct t

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 52599

2012-04-17 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, I think build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers is a better place for that check, since it's already looking at the tree structure. Indeed. I'm finishing testing the below. Ok if it passes? Thanks, Paolo. /cp 2012-04-17 Paolo Carlini PR c++/5259

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 52599

2012-04-17 Thread Jason Merrill
I think build_constexpr_constructor_member_initializers is a better place for that check, since it's already looking at the tree structure. Jason

[C++ Patch] PR 52599

2012-04-17 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, in order to avoid this ICE on invalid, I think it makes sense to explicitly check for try-block in massage_constexpr_body, since 7.1.5/4 explicitly rules out for constexpr constructors such function-body. Tested x86_64-linux. Thanks, Paolo. /// /cp 2012-04-17 Paolo