Applied on trunk.
Jason
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Sure, I guess calling it in one place is better. But I think let's wait
> until 4.6.1 for this patch.
Oh, I didn't notice the only-regression-fixes status. No problem.
--
Rodrigo.
On 03/11/2011 04:33 AM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
How about just calling maybe_constant_value call after the
fold_non_dependent_expr call in cp_parser_parenthesized_expression_list?
Well, I first tried something like this, but the key problem i
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> How about just calling maybe_constant_value call after the
> fold_non_dependent_expr call in cp_parser_parenthesized_expression_list?
Well, I first tried something like this, but the key problem is the
*non_dependent* part, so it does nothin
How about just calling maybe_constant_value call after the
fold_non_dependent_expr call in cp_parser_parenthesized_expression_list?
Jason
Hi!
Checking the new constexpr support in the C++0x frontend, I've notices
that there is one place where a plain constant is accepted but a
constexpr is not.
Probably you have guessed (from the subject line above), it is in an
attribute argument, e.g:
constexpr int foo()
{
return 4;
}
int __a
