OK.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 01/24/2017 11:36 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
>> This is the wrong place for this; we don't know at this point whether
>> we're in a new-expression or actually creating a temporary. I think we
>> want to add this flag in the call to b
On 01/24/2017 11:36 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
This is the wrong place for this; we don't know at this point whether
we're in a new-expression or actually creating a temporary. I think we
want to add this flag in the call to build_value_init from build_new_1.
And look at other calls to build_valu
On 01/24/2017 09:13 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 01/23/2017 05:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I suppose adding a tsubst flag isn't too horrible. But then we also
need to audit other uses of build_value_init to decide whether they
should build a cleanup or not.
@@ -8055,7 +8055,8 @@ build_over_
On 01/23/2017 05:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I suppose adding a tsubst flag isn't too horrible. But then we also
need to audit other uses of build_value_init to decide whether they
should build a cleanup or not.
Not too ugly, I guess. Looking at the other calls that end up at
build_target_e
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> I've figured out what's happening here. Just not sure of the most prudent
> way to fix it.
>
> struct no_destr {
> no_destr() = default;
>
> protected:
> ~no_destr() = default;
> };
>
> void *Foo ()
> {
> return new no_destr ();
> }
>
ping?
On 01/18/2017 01:25 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Jason,
I've figured out what's happening here. Just not sure of the most
prudent way to fix it.
struct no_destr {
no_destr() = default;
protected:
~no_destr() = default;
};
void *Foo ()
{
return new no_destr ();
}
no_destr is a type
