On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 03:39:36PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > But I'm also wondering about massage_init_elt. It has >> > tree t = fold_non_dependent_expr (init); >> > t = maybe_constant_init (t); >> > but given that fold_non_dependent_expr now calls maybe_constant_value, >> > which >> > then causes that we try to cache the calls above, this seems excessive, >> > wouldn't we be better off with just calling fold_non_dependent_init as >> > discussed recently? >> >> Probably. > > Do you want me to try it for GCC 8 or should we table it for GCC 9? > I would think the latter since it's not a regression, just an optimization.
Agreed. Jason
