On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 10:38:25AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > I don't know, can try to add some instrumentation and do bootstrap/regtest
> > with it. The handling of the CONSTRUCTORs with missing or present or mixed
> > indexes is what I found in various middle-end routines.
> > The only thin
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 7:02 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 01:31:30PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > from the constexpr new change apparently broke the following testcase.
> > > When handling COND_EXPR, we build_vector_from_val, however as the
> argument we
> > > pass to it
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 01:31:30PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > from the constexpr new change apparently broke the following testcase.
> > > When handling COND_EXPR, we build_vector_from_val, however as the
> > > argument we
> > > pass to it is not
On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 01:31:30PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > from the constexpr new change apparently broke the following testcase.
> > When handling COND_EXPR, we build_vector_from_val, however as the argument
> > we
> > pass to it is not an INTEGER_CST/REAL_CST, but that wrapped in a
> > N
On 2/4/20 4:20 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
My change
* typeck2.c (store_init_value): Don't call cp_fully_fold_init on
initializers of automatic non-constexpr variables in constexpr
functions.
- value = cp_fully_fold_init (value);
+ /* Don't fold initializers of automatic variables in constexp
Hi!
My change
* typeck2.c (store_init_value): Don't call cp_fully_fold_init on
initializers of automatic non-constexpr variables in constexpr
functions.
- value = cp_fully_fold_init (value);
+ /* Don't fold initializers of automatic variables in constexpr functions,
+ that might fold away so
