OK.
Jason
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 02:57:36PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 05:28:10PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Jakub, you added defer_mark_used_calls for BZ 37189, do you think it's still
> > needed? The testcase passes without it now.
>
> That's a question. Digging through
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 05:28:10PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Jakub, you added defer_mark_used_calls for BZ 37189, do you think it's still
> needed? The testcase passes without it now.
That's a question. Digging through history, I found:
1) r149750 aka gimplification unit-at-a-time
2) PR48869
On 01/26/2016 12:11 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
We don't want finish_function to be called recursively from mark_used.
However, it's desirable and necessary to call itself recursively when
performing delayed folding, because that may have to instantiate and
evaluate constexpr template functions.
On Feb 10, 2016, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2016, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> We don't want finish_function to be called recursively from mark_used.
>> However, it's desirable and necessary to call itself recursively when
>> performing delayed folding, because that may have to instantiate
On Jan 26, 2016, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> We don't want finish_function to be called recursively from mark_used.
> However, it's desirable and necessary to call itself recursively when
> performing delayed folding, because that may have to instantiate and
> evaluate constexpr template functions.
