On 21/03/19 15:03 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/20/19 6:06 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:58:32PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 05:55:04PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 04:56:33PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 20, 2019, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
This test fails with
pr88534.C:58:1: sorry, unimplemented: string literal in function template
signature
Interesting... gcc-8 rejected it with an error message rejecting the
template parameter, but my latest trunk build (dated Mar 13, r269641)
compiles it all right. Was there a subsequent fix, maybe? I didn't
realize it was supposed to be rejected.
Ah, that problem only started with r269814, namely this hunk:
Maybe this is done too early and should be postponed to genericization
(perhaps except for TREE_STATIC vars)?
Or skip when DECL is template_parm_object_p.
Or handle it in mangle.c. I don't see any reason we shouldn't accept
struct A
{
char c[4];
};
template <A a> struct B { };
B<A{"FOO"}> b;
Probably we should use the same mangling whether the initializer for c
was spelled as a string literal or list of integers.
The thing we still don't want to allow is mangling the *address* of a
string literal.
Will that help PR 47488 as well?
