On 3/24/23 18:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 06:11:44PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
When we touch this for COMPONENT_REF, shouldn't we then handle it as
unary given that the second operand is FIELD_DECL and third/fourth
will likely be NULL and even if not, aren't user expressio
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 06:11:44PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > When we touch this for COMPONENT_REF, shouldn't we then handle it as
> > unary given that the second operand is FIELD_DECL and third/fourth
> > will likely be NULL and even if not, aren't user expressions that should be
> > inspecte
On 3/23/23 17:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 04:35:07PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Jakub, does this make sense to you? Do we have a
way of testing for compile-hog regressions?
-- 8< --
The patch for PR91415 fixed -Wsequence-point to treat shifts
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 04:35:07PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Jakub, does this make sense to you? Do we have a
> way of testing for compile-hog regressions?
>
> -- 8< --
>
> The patch for PR91415 fixed -Wsequence-point to treat shifts and ARRAY_REF
> as sequenced
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Jakub, does this make sense to you? Do we have a
way of testing for compile-hog regressions?
-- 8< --
The patch for PR91415 fixed -Wsequence-point to treat shifts and ARRAY_REF
as sequenced in C++17, and COMPONENT_REF as well. But this is unnecessary
for COMPONENT_R
