------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-03-07 04:44 ------- Subject: Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable types
Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>This doesn't look quite right. First, we're trying to get rid of >>tsubst_copy; we should not add new calls. You should do the RECURs >>here, and then build up the new node. > > > I'd have to use build3 (TARGET_EXPR...) or introduce a new call to > create a target_expr with given slot, initial and cleanup, because > AFAICT there isn't any that takes a cleanup. Yes, you should use build3. > They don't, and they can't without this piece of code. When we tsubst > INITIAL, an incomplete array type (T[]), that had been used as the > type of the slot and the target_expr itself in > finish_compound_literal(), called while processing a template, > digest_init() (or something else; I no longer remember exactly) > completes the array type with the number of entries in the INITIAL > CONSTRUCTOR. Then you should tsubst the INITIAL first, and unconditionally copy the type to the TARGET_EXPR when you use build3. Or, even better, call the same functions in semantics.c that the parser would call if not in a template. In other words, call finish_compound_literal again, from pt.c. That's the overall design: we try to reuse the same semantic routines again at template instantiation time. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20103
