On 10/11/2013 04:51 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
The 6th time we get there when compiling the testcase, that is when we
are converting to int&, at that line this is expr_type:
Aha. The patch is OK then.
Jason
Hi,
On 10/11/2013 05:55 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/10/2013 03:31 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 10/10/2013 08:26 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/10/2013 08:33 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ expr_type = TREE_TYPE (expr) = cp_build_qualified_type
+(TREE_TYPE (expr), cp_type_quals (
On 10/10/2013 03:31 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 10/10/2013 08:26 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/10/2013 08:33 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ expr_type = TREE_TYPE (expr) = cp_build_qualified_type
+(TREE_TYPE (expr), cp_type_quals (TREE_TYPE (probe_type)));
Won't that end up being
Hi,
On 10/10/2013 08:26 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/10/2013 08:33 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ expr_type = TREE_TYPE (expr) = cp_build_qualified_type
+(TREE_TYPE (expr), cp_type_quals (TREE_TYPE (probe_type)));
Won't that end up being the same as the contents of expr_type be
On 10/10/2013 08:33 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ expr_type = TREE_TYPE (expr) = cp_build_qualified_type
+ (TREE_TYPE (expr), cp_type_quals (TREE_TYPE (probe_type)));
Won't that end up being the same as the contents of expr_type before
this statement? Can we just remove
