On 11/30/2017 01:19 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 17/11/2017 15:09, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi again,
I managed to spend much more time on the issue and I'm starting a new
thread with a mature - IMHO - proposal: the big thing is the use of
the existing check_array_designated_initializer in
process_init_constructor_array, which calls maybe_constant_value, as
we want, and covers all the ill-formed cases which I can imagine. I'm
also tweaking a bit the parser to check the return value of
require_potential_rvalue_constant_expression in order to avoid
redundant diagnostic in some cases. Also, a couple more testcases
beyond the bug report.
I'm gently pinging this. I rebased it vs a very minor conflict due to
Jakub's implementation of P0329R4. While I was at it, I'm also proposing
a small tweak vs the previous version in the way
check_array_designated_initializer is used: only if ce->index is
non-null, more consistently with the current code.
OK.
Jason
