On 11/27/2013 06:23 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
Also ok for 4.8 branch? It's a 4.8/4.9 regression.
Yes.
Jason
On 27-11-13 01:21, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/26/2013 03:47 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013, Tom de Vries wrote:
* g++.dg/pr59032.C: New testcase.
* gcc.dg/pr59032.c: Same.
I didn't check very carefully, but they look similar. If they are indeed
the same, could it move to
On 11/26/2013 03:47 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013, Tom de Vries wrote:
* g++.dg/pr59032.C: New testcase.
* gcc.dg/pr59032.c: Same.
I didn't check very carefully, but they look similar. If they are indeed
the same, could it move to c-c++-common?
OK with that change.
Jas
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013, Tom de Vries wrote:
* g++.dg/pr59032.C: New testcase.
* gcc.dg/pr59032.c: Same.
I didn't check very carefully, but they look similar. If they are indeed
the same, could it move to c-c++-common?
--
Marc Glisse
Jason,
This patch handles vector increment/decrement in build_unary_op and
cp_build_binary_op.
In other words, we allow v++ and --v on a vector v.
v + 1 and v - 1 are already allowed.
This fixes an ICE when compiling a vector increment/decrement.
Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64.
OK fo
