On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:13 AM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 05:59:56PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > > On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:43 PM Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > * typeck.c (build_static_cast_1): Use cp_build_addr_expr. > > > > > > For GCC 9 I fixed this bug with a patch to gimplify_cond_expr, but this > > > function was also doing the wrong thing. > > > > > > Using build_address does not push the ADDR_EXPR down into the arms of a > > > COND_EXPR, which we need for proper handling of conversion of an lvalue ?: > > > to another reference type. > > > > And that allows the gimplifier to assert that we should never see a > > COND_EXPR of addressable type. > > > > Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. > > > commit c4f1e37204aaea7efb2aa7dc234d5c8ebeba1089 > > Author: Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> > > Date: Mon Mar 4 14:09:57 2019 -0500 > > > > * gimplify.c (gimplify_cond_expr): Don't check TREE_ADDRESSABLE. > > > > The front end shouldn't produce a GENERIC COND_EXPR of TREE_ADDRESSABLE > > type. > > I think this broke a lot in the D testsuite:
Thanks, reverted. Jason
