On 04/26/2012 04:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 04/25/2012 10:25 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Thus, the below elementary patch appears to work fine (I also double
checked that in such cases the type remains trivial). It's all there is
to it?
Unfortunately, I don't think so; there's a lot of code in
On 04/25/2012 10:25 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Thus, the below elementary patch appears to work fine (I also double
checked that in such cases the type remains trivial). It's all there is
to it?
Unfortunately, I don't think so; there's a lot of code in the compiler
that assumes that trivial cons
