------- Comment #9 from jason at redhat dot com 2008-12-19 17:28 ------- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected call_expr, have compound_expr in build_new_method_call, at cp/call.c:6000
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Another alternative would be not to create the COMPOUND_EXPR or NOP_EXPR > if (processing_template_decl) at all, but for the destructor cast to void > that would mean the type wouldn't be void during template processing. Before > the PR37540 patch the CALL_EXPR would have void_type_node, which is wrong, but > leaving the type non-void would be IMHO worse. This patch is OK if it passes testing. But it makes me wonder if we're handling decltype of the COMPOUND_EXPR case properly. The destructor issue makes me wish again that ARM hadn't decided to mess with the ABI. Sigh. Jason -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38577
