On Tue, Apr 19, 2022, 6:53 AM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 09:57:12AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote: > > > Hmm, Patrick made a similar change and then reverted it for PR90996. > > > But it makes sense to me; when we replace placeholders, it's > appropriate > > > to look at the whole aggregate initialization rather than the innermost > > > CONSTRUCTOR that has DMIs. Patrick, was there a reason that change > > > seemed wrong to you, or was it just unnecessary for the bug you were > > > working on? > > > > The reverted change and Jakub's more general patch seem right/safe to > > me FWIW, I just couldn't come up with a testcase that demonstrated its > > need at the time unfortunately. > > So is the patch ok for trunk then? > Apparently it is also a recent regression on 11 branch (since Marek's > r11-9711) when compiling firefox, ok for 11.3 as well? > Ok for both. > > > 2022-04-15 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > PR c++/105256 > > > > * typeck2.cc (process_init_constructor_array, > > > > process_init_constructor_record, > process_init_constructor_union): Move > > > > CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY flag from CONSTRUCTOR > elements to the > > > > containing CONSTRUCTOR. > > > > > > > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/pr105256.C: New test. > > Jakub > >
