On Fri, 9 Oct 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/9/20 4:48 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:40:52PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > On 10/4/20 11:28 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > cp_tree_equal currently considers alignof the same as __alignof__, but
On 10/9/20 4:48 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:40:52PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 10/4/20 11:28 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
cp_tree_equal currently considers alignof the same as __alignof__, but
these operators are semantically different ever since r8-7957.
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:40:52PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On 10/4/20 11:28 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > cp_tree_equal currently considers alignof the same as __alignof__, but
> > these operators are semantically different ever since r8-7957. In the
> > testcase below, this c
On 10/4/20 11:28 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
cp_tree_equal currently considers alignof the same as __alignof__, but
these operators are semantically different ever since r8-7957. In the
testcase below, this causes the second static_assert to fail on targets
where alignof(double) != __alignof__(doub
cp_tree_equal currently considers alignof the same as __alignof__, but
these operators are semantically different ever since r8-7957. In the
testcase below, this causes the second static_assert to fail on targets
where alignof(double) != __alignof__(double) because the specialization
cache (which
