https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #16 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Sep 5 13:33:44 2017
New Revision: 251714
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251714&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2017-09-05 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/81942
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> The patch LGTM, but I'll defer the final say to Jason/Nathan.
FYI I tried the patch on arm-none-eabi toolchain and it fixes the bug reported.
Best regard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The patch LGTM, but I'll defer the final say to Jason/Nathan.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini ---
I think this is getting closer:
Index: constexpr.c
===
--- constexpr.c (revision 251607)
+++ constexpr.c (working copy)
@@ -3671,7 +3671,9 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini ---
Uhm, no, we are not completely safe. Because in general, per 10.1.5, a
constexpr function is *not* supposed to contain goto statements, and our code
reflects that in various implicit/subtle ways. Thus the on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini ---
I meant constexpr-77467.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini ---
Thanks.
What I quickly hacked can't be completely correct because it breaks
constexpr-7747.C on x86_64-linux. That most likely implies that since we are
using DECL_ARTIFICIAL labels in other cases we need at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Hi Paolo,
Thanks for working on this.
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #6)
> It would be nice if somebody with a fully functional ARM toolchain could
> check whether something like the below at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jose.marchesi at oracle dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
Such labels are special: they are DECL_ARTIFICIAL and are created by
create_artificial_label called by start_preparsed_function.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini ---
Adding more details.
The GOTO_EXPR is generated for such targets in finish_return_stmt:
903 if (DECL_DESTRUCTOR_P (current_function_decl)
904 || (DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (current_function_decl)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
Paolo Carlini ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81942
TC changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from TC ---
19 matches
Mail list logo
