On 02/11/2016 02:44 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 01:56:09PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 02/11/2016 11:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
+ && !integer_zerop (tree_strip_nop_conversions (op1)))
Maybe cp_fold rather than tree_strip_nop_conversions?
Is it safe
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 08:44:24PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 01:56:09PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 02/11/2016 11:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >+ && !integer_zerop (tree_strip_nop_conversions (op1)))
> >
> > Maybe cp_fold rather than tree_stri
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 01:56:09PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 02/11/2016 11:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >+ && !integer_zerop (tree_strip_nop_conversions (op1)))
>
> Maybe cp_fold rather than tree_strip_nop_conversions?
Is it safe to call cp_fully_fold (typeck.c only calls i
On 02/11/2016 11:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
+ && !integer_zerop (tree_strip_nop_conversions (op1)))
Maybe cp_fold rather than tree_strip_nop_conversions?
Jason
Hi!
Until recently, integer_zerop would STRIP_NOPS, so that change regressed
some cases in the -Waddress warning that affect some real-world code.
The following patch re-adds stripping of nops for that case (but doesn't try
to fold it further).
With this patch, for C and C++98 we get the same beha
