OK.
Jason
Hi again,
On 08/23/2014 09:16 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
.. on the other hand, the below is a case which my patchlet, which
simply tracks pointers, does *not* handle correctly:
struct B { };
template struct A { };
A*p = 42;
should be fixable by complicating a bit the tracking, telling apart
m
.. on the other hand, the below is a case which my patchlet, which
simply tracks pointers, does *not* handle correctly:
struct B { };
template struct A { };
A*p = 42;
should be fixable by complicating a bit the tracking, telling apart
member pointers.
Paolo.
Hi,
On 08/22/2014 10:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Does your patch handle this correctly?
template struct A { };
A*p = 42;
I would say yes:
34938_2.C:2:20: error: invalid conversion from ‘int’ to ‘Aconst>*’ [-fpermissive]
A*p = 42;
But, interestingly, in this case 4.8.x was incorrect, this
Does your patch handle this correctly?
template struct A { };
A*p = 42;
Jason
Hi again,
On 08/22/2014 09:33 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 08/22/2014 09:27 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/22/2014 03:19 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Ok. Currently in cases like the present one, dump_type_suffix upon a
pointer recurses and we end up calling pp_cxx_cv_qualifiers on the
given
F
On 08/22/2014 03:47 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Are there actually cases where the qualifiers mean different things
for function_type and method_type?
If a FUNCTION_TYPE is a typedef or template argument, TYPE_READONLY and
TYPE_VOLATILE are the function-cv-quals. A plain METHOD_TYPE cannot
On 22 August 2014 21:33, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> Incidentally, I don't understand
>>
>>> + pp_c_ws_string (pp, (func_type && !method_type
>>
>> vs
>>>
>>> + pp_c_ws_string (pp, (func_type || method_type
>>
>>
>> Surely the same logic is appropriate for both const and noreturn, and they
>
Hi,
On 08/22/2014 09:27 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/22/2014 03:19 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Ok. Currently in cases like the present one, dump_type_suffix upon a
pointer recurses and we end up calling pp_cxx_cv_qualifiers on the given
FUNCTION_TYPE / METHOD_TYPE. Thus pp_cxx_cv_qualifiers lack
On 08/22/2014 03:19 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Ok. Currently in cases like the present one, dump_type_suffix upon a
pointer recurses and we end up calling pp_cxx_cv_qualifiers on the given
FUNCTION_TYPE / METHOD_TYPE. Thus pp_cxx_cv_qualifiers lacks the pointer
context, just sees the latter. Do you
Hi,
On 08/22/2014 08:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/22/2014 01:53 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
maybe this old issue is already fixed. We used to ICE on:
typedef void (*fptr)() __attribute((noreturn));
template void foo();
template void bar();
fptr f = bar< foo<0> >;
but lately we simply rejec
On 08/22/2014 01:53 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
maybe this old issue is already fixed. We used to ICE on:
typedef void (*fptr)() __attribute((noreturn));
template void foo();
template void bar();
fptr f = bar< foo<0> >;
but lately we simply reject it:
34938.C:5:10: error: no matches converting f
Hi,
maybe this old issue is already fixed. We used to ICE on:
typedef void (*fptr)() __attribute((noreturn));
template void foo();
template void bar();
fptr f = bar< foo<0> >;
but lately we simply reject it:
34938.C:5:10: error: no matches converting function ‘bar’ to type ‘fptr
{aka void (*
13 matches
Mail list logo
