[ Resending since this was somehow sent in HMTL mode and was scrubbed ]
On 30 Oct 2024, at 17:16, Simon Martin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just closing the loop on this...
>
> On 19 Oct 2024, at 11:57, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> On 19 Oct 2024, at 10:16, Simon Martin wrote:
>
> On 18 Oct 2024, at 10:55, Sam Ja
Hi,
Just closing the loop on this...
On 19 Oct 2024, at 11:57, Iain Sandoe wrote:
On 19 Oct 2024, at 10:16, Simon Martin wrote:
On 18 Oct 2024, at 10:55, Sam James wrote:
Simon Martin writes:
Hi Sam,
Hi Simon,
On 16 Oct 2024, at 22:06, Sam James wrote:
Simon Martin writes:
We ICE upon
> On 19 Oct 2024, at 10:16, Simon Martin wrote:
>
> On 18 Oct 2024, at 10:55, Sam James wrote:
>
>> Simon Martin writes:
>>
>>> Hi Sam,
>>
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Oct 2024, at 22:06, Sam James wrote:
>>>
Simon Martin writes:
> We ICE upon the following invalid code
On 18 Oct 2024, at 10:55, Sam James wrote:
> Simon Martin writes:
>
>> Hi Sam,
>
> Hi Simon,
>
>>
>> On 16 Oct 2024, at 22:06, Sam James wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Martin writes:
>>>
We ICE upon the following invalid code because we end up calling
finalize_nrv_r with a RETURN_EXPR with no ope
Simon Martin writes:
> Hi Sam,
Hi Simon,
>
> On 16 Oct 2024, at 22:06, Sam James wrote:
>
>> Simon Martin writes:
>>
>>> We ICE upon the following invalid code because we end up calling
>>> finalize_nrv_r with a RETURN_EXPR with no operand.
>>>
>>> === cut here ===
>>> struct X {
>>> ~X();
>
Hi Sam,
On 16 Oct 2024, at 22:06, Sam James wrote:
> Simon Martin writes:
>
>> We ICE upon the following invalid code because we end up calling
>> finalize_nrv_r with a RETURN_EXPR with no operand.
>>
>> === cut here ===
>> struct X {
>> ~X();
>> };
>> X test(bool b) {
>> {
>> X x;
>>
Simon Martin writes:
> We ICE upon the following invalid code because we end up calling
> finalize_nrv_r with a RETURN_EXPR with no operand.
>
> === cut here ===
> struct X {
> ~X();
> };
> X test(bool b) {
> {
> X x;
> return x;
> }
> if (!(b)) return;
> }
> === cut here ===
>
