On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 09:11:02AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > As mentioned in the PR, another option I see is special case >> > REFERENCE_REF_P INDIRECT_REFs and MEM_REFs into which they are gimplified >> > in cp_genericize_r by not changing is_invisiref_parm decls if they are >> > already wrapped in those. >> >> That sounds more robust. > > Actually, now that I think about it, it sounds less robust. > E.g. if the invisiref parm is initially used as operand of ADDR_EXPR, > then during the first cp_genericize_tree it will be turned into > ADDR_EXPR <INDIRECT_REF <decl>>, but gimplification will turn that just > into decl, and if we genericize that again, we turn it into INDIRECT_REF > <decl> > because we won't see INDIRECT_REF/MEM_REF wrapping it.
True. Then your patch is OK. > Is there any easy way to construct a testcase where VEC_INIT_EXPR > initializer will be an arbitrary expression where such &parm could appear > if parm is passed by invisible reference? I can't think of anything offhand. Jason
