On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 7:07 AM Alexander Monakov <amona...@ispras.ru> wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we should remove that in favor of fold_for_warn in > > > > > check_function_arguments. > > > > David, I think your patch also fixes PR 86567. > > > > David, Jason, could you comment on doing something similar (using > > fold_for_warn > > instead of maybe_constant_value) to solve other issues where generation of > > new > > tree uids under maybe_constant_value called in warning context changes code > > generation, in particular PR 86586? > > I don't see how it would help; this change does the same folding, just > a bit later.
If David's patch causes GCC to perform that folding only after main compilation flow has already instantiated templates, that should help: folding for warning wouldn't try to instantiate anything not already instantiated, and thus wouldn't cause allocation of new uids, I think? (I did check that it helps on the std::vector testcase given in the PR) I see that my question about fold_for_warn doesn't make sense though. Thanks. Alexander
