On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 04:22:03PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 09:20:48AM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > @@ -4566,19 +4566,18 @@ cxx_eval_bit_cast (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree
> > t, bool *non
Yes, also ok with that change.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 10:22 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 09:20:48AM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > @@ -4566,19 +4566,18 @@ cxx_eval_bit_cast (const constexpr_ctx *ct
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 09:20:48AM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> @@ -4566,19 +4566,18 @@ cxx_eval_bit_cast (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree t,
> bool *non_constant_p,
> static tree
> cxx_eval_logical_expression (const constex
Ok.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 9:20 AM Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 08:56:23AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 4/20/22 18:40, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > Here we issue a bogus error for the first assert in the test. Therein
> > > we have
> > >
> > > = (void) (VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(y
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 08:56:23AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 4/20/22 18:40, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Here we issue a bogus error for the first assert in the test. Therein
> > we have
> >
> > = (void) (VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(yes) || handle_error ());,
> > VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(value);
> >
> > whi
