On 9/19/23 13:53, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/18/23 12:12, Patrick Palka wrote:
Jason pointed out that even implicit loads of volatile references need
to undergo lvalue-to-rvalue conversion, but we currently emit a warning
in this case and discard the lo
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 9/18/23 12:12, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > Jason pointed out that even implicit loads of volatile references need
> > to undergo lvalue-to-rvalue conversion, but we currently emit a warning
> > in this case and discard the load. This patch changes this
On 9/18/23 12:12, Patrick Palka wrote:
Jason pointed out that even implicit loads of volatile references need
to undergo lvalue-to-rvalue conversion, but we currently emit a warning
in this case and discard the load. This patch changes this behavior so
that we don't issue a warning, and preserve
On Mon, 18 Sep 2023, Patrick Palka wrote:
> Jason pointed out that even implicit loads of volatile references need
> to undergo lvalue-to-rvalue conversion, but we currently emit a warning
> in this case and discard the load. This patch changes this behavior so
> that we don't issue a warning, an
Jason pointed out that even implicit loads of volatile references need
to undergo lvalue-to-rvalue conversion, but we currently emit a warning
in this case and discard the load. This patch changes this behavior so
that we don't issue a warning, and preserve the load.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
*
