https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68782
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68782
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Jan 26 21:34:10 2016
New Revision: 232847
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232847&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/68782
gcc/
* tree.c (recompute_constructor_flags):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68782
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sbergman at redhat dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68782
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, I gave up on this PR, so if Jason or somebody more familiar with C++ FE
than myself could pick it up, it would be greatly appreciated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68782
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68782
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3)
> Hmm, any element without TREE_CONSTANT should have caused us to return
> the original CONSTRUCTOR.
Perhaps the TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS stuff is not needed, but for TR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68782
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
On 12/14/2015 01:45 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I think the problem is constexpr.c creates invalid trees, in particular
> CONSTRUCTORs that have non-TREE_CONSTANT elements, yet they have TREE_CONSTA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68782
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68782
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68782
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
10 matches
Mail list logo
