On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 04:17:48PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 2/5/19 3:43 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:24:15PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 2/5/19 11:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:24:14AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > >
On 2/5/19 3:43 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:24:15PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/5/19 11:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:24:14AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
Yes, thanks, mark_rvalue_use is definitely wrong here. But mark_lvalue_use
might be wr
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:24:15PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 2/5/19 11:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:24:14AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > Yes, thanks, mark_rvalue_use is definitely wrong here. But
> > > mark_lvalue_use
> > > might be wrong as well; we don'
On 2/5/19 11:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:24:14AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
Yes, thanks, mark_rvalue_use is definitely wrong here. But mark_lvalue_use
might be wrong as well; we don't know here how the expression is used by the
inner conversions for the user-defined
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:24:14AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Yes, thanks, mark_rvalue_use is definitely wrong here. But mark_lvalue_use
> might be wrong as well; we don't know here how the expression is used by the
> inner conversions for the user-defined conversion. Can we remove the call
>
On 2/4/19 3:48 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
In this test we have a user-defined conversion converting const int & to
T, and we're binding a const int to const int & -- the parameter of the
converting ctor. We call Func with "VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(Val)"
as an argument. I like to use a diagram for the co
