On Sun, 15 Nov 2020, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> > I think it might be safest to avoid doing any conversion in the case where
> > the value is still of array type at this point (C90 non-lvalue arrays).
>
> I added a test for arrays, but I am not sure what effect it has.
> What would be C90 non-lvalu
Am Montag, den 09.11.2020, 23:41 + schrieb Joseph Myers:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2020, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> > t = (const T) { { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 } };
> > test (&t);
> > }
> >
> > Not sure what to do about it, maybe 'convert' is not
> > the right function to use.
>
> I think 'co
On Sat, 7 Nov 2020, Uecker, Martin wrote:
> In 'gcc.dg/cond-constqual-1.c' we test for the opposite
> behavior for conditional operators. I do not know why.
> We could just invert the test.
That's probably a relic of the old idea that rvalues might actually have
qualified type in some cases; it
To better understand what impact this may have, I added code
to drop the qualifiers in 'convert_lvalue_to_rvalue'. Here
is the patch.
There are three new errors in the testsuite:
In 'gcc.dg/cond-constqual-1.c' we test for the opposite
behavior for conditional operators. I do not know why.
We cou
