On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 01:58:20AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > + if (reuse && nelts < CONSTRUCTOR_NELTS (new_init))
> > + {
> > + vec *v = NULL;
> > + if (nelts)
>
> vec_alloc does nothing if nelts is 0, so this test seems unnecessary. OK
> either way.
I wasn't sure, but now I'
On 3/11/20 6:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 04:02:51PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
We should certainly avoid copying if they're the same. The code above for
only copying the bits that aren't going to be thrown away seems pretty
straightforward, might as well
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:28:01PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 04:02:51PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > We should certainly avoid copying if they're the same. The code above for
> > only copying the bits that aren't going to be thrown awa
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 04:02:51PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> We should certainly avoid copying if they're the same. The code above for
> only copying the bits that aren't going to be thrown away seems pretty
> straightforward, might as well use it even if the savings aren't lik
On 3/11/20 11:44 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 07:52:15AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 07:38:17PM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
--- a/gcc/cp/decl.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl.c
@@ -6062,6 +6062,13 @@ reshape_init_array_1 (tree elt_t
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 07:52:15AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 07:38:17PM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/cp/decl.c
> > +++ b/gcc/cp/decl.c
> > @@ -6062,6 +6062,13 @@ reshape_init_array_1 (tree elt_type, tree max_index,
> > reshap
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 07:38:17PM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> --- a/gcc/cp/decl.c
> +++ b/gcc/cp/decl.c
> @@ -6062,6 +6062,13 @@ reshape_init_array_1 (tree elt_type, tree max_index,
> reshape_iter *d,
>else if (last_nonzero < nelts - 1)
> nelts = last_nonzero + 1;
On 3/10/20 7:38 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
This is a bad interaction between sharing a constructor for an array
and stripping its trailing zero-initializers. Here we reuse a ctor
and then strip its 0s. This breaks overload resolution in this test:
D can be initialized from {} but not from {0}, so
This is a bad interaction between sharing a constructor for an array
and stripping its trailing zero-initializers. Here we reuse a ctor
and then strip its 0s. This breaks overload resolution in this test:
D can be initialized from {} but not from {0}, so if we truncate the
constructor not to incl
