> Like this?
Fine with me, thanks!
--
Eric Botcazou
On 6/9/20 8:41 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Yes, but the problem is that remap_decl isn't getting called.
Right, I can get it to be called by adding a pushdecl to grokdeclarator...
Attaching it to the BIND_EXPR doesn't help walk_tree_1 do the right
thing with the DECL_EXPR.
... but, indeed, thi
> Yes, but the problem is that remap_decl isn't getting called.
Right, I can get it to be called by adding a pushdecl to grokdeclarator...
> Attaching it to the BIND_EXPR doesn't help walk_tree_1 do the right
> thing with the DECL_EXPR.
... but, indeed, this still ICEs. So the key is that the D
On 6/8/20 4:19 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/8/20 5:46 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
The only case handled specially is TYPE_DECL; other DECL_EXPRs fall
through to the default case, where we WALK_SUBTREE over all the operands
of the expression, which for DECL_EXPR is the decl.
It seems hard to beli
On 6/8/20 5:46 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
The only case handled specially is TYPE_DECL; other DECL_EXPRs fall
through to the default case, where we WALK_SUBTREE over all the operands
of the expression, which for DECL_EXPR is the decl.
It seems hard to believe that the inliner relies on this to co
> The only case handled specially is TYPE_DECL; other DECL_EXPRs fall
> through to the default case, where we WALK_SUBTREE over all the operands
> of the expression, which for DECL_EXPR is the decl.
It seems hard to believe that the inliner relies on this to copy DECLs though,
see the calls to re
On 6/6/20 4:56 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
This patch fixes walk_tree_1 to call the function on the TYPE_DECL, as we do
for other decls of a DECL_EXPR.
Where is that done exactly? The only case handled by DECL_EXPR is TYPE_DECL.
The only case handled specially is TYPE_DECL; other DECL_EXPRs fal
> This patch fixes walk_tree_1 to call the function on the TYPE_DECL, as we do
> for other decls of a DECL_EXPR.
Where is that done exactly? The only case handled by DECL_EXPR is TYPE_DECL.
The correct thing to do is clearly implied by the first line in your patch.
--
Eric Botcazou
On June 6, 2020 6:17:49 AM GMT+02:00, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>The problem in this testcase comes from cloning the constructor into
>complete and base variants. When we clone the body the first time,
>walk_tree_1 calls copy_tree_body_r on the type of the artificial
>TYPE_DECL
>we ma
