On 11/14/2014 08:46 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+/* Like maybe_constant_value but first fully constant fold the argument. */
"but first fully instantiate the argument."
OK with that change, thanks.
Jason
Hi,
On 11/14/2014 03:35 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/13/2014 04:31 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I think this should be replaced with fold_ if
(processing_template_decl) in build_enumerator.
Ok. The value can be NULL_TREE, thus in a straightforward change (per
the below) I have to check for that,
On 11/13/2014 04:31 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I think this should be replaced with fold_ if
(processing_template_decl) in build_enumerator.
Ok. The value can be NULL_TREE, thus in a straightforward change (per
the below) I have to check for that, otherwise we crash in
maybe_constant_value. Either
Hi,
On 11/13/2014 07:31 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/13/2014 12:48 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
While we are at it, can you double check that in end_maybe_infinite_loop
we really want the non-sfinae version (which in principle can emit hard
errors): the inconsistency with begin_maybe_infinite_loo
On 11/13/2014 12:48 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
While we are at it, can you double check that in end_maybe_infinite_loop
we really want the non-sfinae version (which in principle can emit hard
errors): the inconsistency with begin_maybe_infinite_loop seems weird to
me...
I agree, let's use the sfi
Hi,
On 11/13/2014 05:42 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/13/2014 11:10 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/13/2014 05:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
shall we do something like the below?
Something similar, yes. Though it would also be nice to avoid the
redundant checking in the two functions: we only
On 11/13/2014 11:10 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/13/2014 05:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
shall we do something like the below?
Something similar, yes. Though it would also be nice to avoid the
redundant checking in the two functions: we only want to do constexpr
folding if we did the tsubst.
2014-11-13 17:10 GMT+01:00 Jason Merrill :
> On 11/13/2014 05:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>> shall we do something like the below?
>
>
> Something similar, yes. Though it would also be nice to avoid the redundant
> checking in the two functions: we only want to do constexpr folding if we
> did
On 11/13/2014 05:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
shall we do something like the below?
Something similar, yes. Though it would also be nice to avoid the
redundant checking in the two functions: we only want to do constexpr
folding if we did the tsubst.
Kai is working on folding changes, so I t
