On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 08:10:31PM +, Simon Martin wrote:
> Successfully tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with "make check-c++-all".
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-asm-5.C: Pass -fno-implicit-constexpr.
LGTM.
Jakub
that and I can merge it later today if that works
> for
> you.
Here’s the updated patch, successfully tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
with “make check-c++-all”. OK?
Thanks, Simon
From eccf73af1b3555be3e02ea2f3b1ca0be32c81cc1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Simon Martin
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 20
Hi Jakub,
On 20 Jan 2025, at 10:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 08:52:17AM +, Simon Martin wrote:
>> On 12 Jan 2025, at 12:10, Simon Martin wrote:
>>
>>> While testing an unrelated C++ patch with "make check-c++-all", I
>>> noticed that r15-6760-g38a13ea4117b96 added a test
On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 08:52:17AM +, Simon Martin wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2025, at 12:10, Simon Martin wrote:
>
> > While testing an unrelated C++ patch with "make check-c++-all", I
> > noticed that r15-6760-g38a13ea4117b96 added a test case that fails
> > with
> > -fimplicit-constexpr.
> >
> > T
Hi,
On 12 Jan 2025, at 12:10, Simon Martin wrote:
> While testing an unrelated C++ patch with "make check-c++-all", I
> noticed that r15-6760-g38a13ea4117b96 added a test case that fails
> with
> -fimplicit-constexpr.
>
> The problem is that this test unconditionally expects an error stating
> t
While testing an unrelated C++ patch with "make check-c++-all", I
noticed that r15-6760-g38a13ea4117b96 added a test case that fails with
-fimplicit-constexpr.
The problem is that this test unconditionally expects an error stating
that a non-constexpr function is called, but that function is
auto-
