On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 4:26 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > I admit this is just a shot in the dark, but I don't see why > one couldn't adjust a type of EMPTY_CLASS_EXPR to EMPTY_CLASS_EXPR > with a different variant of the same type.
Makes sense. > Or, should I drop that > && TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type) == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (TREE_TYPE (temp)) > part? We don't really verify something similar for CONSTRUCTORs. I suppose it makes sense to assert same_type_ignoring_top_level_qualifiers_p for both CONSTRUCTOR and EMPTY_CLASS_EXPR. OK with that change. Jason
