On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 03:06:38PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 08/25/2014 07:43 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > * semantics.c (finish_static_assert): Strip no-op conversions.
>
> I think I'd rather strip these in cxx_eval_builtin_function_call so that we
> don't have to deal with them in var
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 05:59:17PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> > PR62024 reports that we can't use __atomic_always_lock_free in
> > a static assert, as the FEs say it's not a constant expression. Yet the
> > docs say that the result of __atomic_al
On 08/25/2014 07:43 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
* semantics.c (finish_static_assert): Strip no-op conversions.
I think I'd rather strip these in cxx_eval_builtin_function_call so that
we don't have to deal with them in various consumers.
Jason
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
> PR62024 reports that we can't use __atomic_always_lock_free in
> a static assert, as the FEs say it's not a constant expression. Yet the
> docs say that the result of __atomic_always_lock_free is a compile time
> constant.
> We can fix this pretty easil
PR62024 reports that we can't use __atomic_always_lock_free in
a static assert, as the FEs say it's not a constant expression. Yet the
docs say that the result of __atomic_always_lock_free is a compile time
constant.
We can fix this pretty easily. While fold folds __atomic_always_lock_free
to a c
