This caused
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55081
--
Roman Zhuykov
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 02:13:32 +0200
> There's now an "excess error":
>
> x/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/bitset/45713.cc:24:55:
> error: size of array 'test' is not an integral constant-expression
> int test[sizeof(std::bitset<0x>) != 1 ? 1 : -1];
>
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:56:29 +0200
> 2012-10-02 Jakub Jelinek
>
> cp/
> * cp-tree.h (SIZEOF_EXPR_TYPE_P): Define.
> * tree.c (cp_tree_equal): Handle SIZEOF_EXPR with
> SIZEOF_EXPR_TYPE_P.
...etc.
Looks like this caused a regression; PR54897,
On 10/02/2012 08:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Perhaps maybe_constant_value already does all that integral_constant_value
does, but I'm not sure about it.
It does, you can remove that call.
OK with that change.
Jason
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 11:14:37AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek a écrit:
>
> > --- gcc/cp/call.c.jj2012-09-27 12:45:49.0 +0200
> > +++ gcc/cp/call.c 2012-10-01 17:53:17.594609236 +0200
> > @@ -557,7 +557,10 @@ null_ptr_cst_p (tree t)
> > {
> >/* Core
Jakub Jelinek a écrit:
> --- gcc/cp/call.c.jj 2012-09-27 12:45:49.0 +0200
> +++ gcc/cp/call.c 2012-10-01 17:53:17.594609236 +0200
> @@ -557,7 +557,10 @@ null_ptr_cst_p (tree t)
> {
>/* Core issue 903 says only literal 0 is a null pointer constant. */
>if (cxx_di
Hmm. This is a rather intrusive change to work around the problem of
early folding, which we'd like to move away from anyway. How does it
work to always keep SIZEOF_EXPR unfolded until cxx_eval_constant_expression?
Jason
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 03:26:34PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 08/17/2012 03:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> >s/stpncopy/stpncpy/, yeah, I guess, we could do that for those too,
> >but 1) I'd prefer to wait for the C++ FE change to go in first
> >2) {,v}snprintf would be much harder than the
On 08/17/2012 03:09 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
s/stpncopy/stpncpy/, yeah, I guess, we could do that for those too,
but 1) I'd prefer to wait for the C++ FE change to go in first
2) {,v}snprintf would be much harder than the rest, as the size
argument then isn't the last argument to the function, a
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 02:52:34PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >+{
> >+case BUILT_IN_STRNCMP:
> >+case BUILT_IN_STRNCASECMP:
> >+case BUILT_IN_STRNCPY:
> >+case BUILT_IN_STRNCAT:
> >+ strop = true;
> >+ /* FALLTHRU */
> >+case BUILT_IN_MEMCPY:
> >+case BUILT
On 08/16/2012 09:10 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
+ switch (DECL_FUNCTION_CODE (callee))
+{
+case BUILT_IN_STRNCMP:
+case BUILT_IN_STRNCASECMP:
+case BUILT_IN_STRNCPY:
+case BUILT_IN_STRNCAT:
+ strop = true;
+ /* FALLTHRU */
+case BUILT_IN_MEMCPY:
+case BUILT_IN
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 04:29:55PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > I was mainly interested in whether such an approach is acceptable, or
> > > whether I need to stop evaluating sizeof right
12 matches
Mail list logo
