Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/68948 (wrong code generation due to invalid constructor call)

2016-02-19 Thread Patrick Palka
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 02/19/2016 11:56 AM, Patrick Palka wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> >>> On 02/18/2016 01:25 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/68948 (wrong code generation due to invalid constructor call)

2016-02-19 Thread Jason Merrill
On 02/19/2016 11:56 AM, Patrick Palka wrote: On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 02/18/2016 01:25 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: OK. Is this an approval of the 2nd patch for next stage 1? Actually, I've been looking

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/68948 (wrong code generation due to invalid constructor call)

2016-02-19 Thread Patrick Palka
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 02/18/2016 01:25 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> >>> OK. >> >> >> Is this an approval of the 2nd patch for next stage 1? > > > Actually, I've been looking at this area a lot recen

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/68948 (wrong code generation due to invalid constructor call)

2016-02-19 Thread Jason Merrill
On 02/18/2016 01:25 PM, Patrick Palka wrote: On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: OK. Is this an approval of the 2nd patch for next stage 1? Actually, I've been looking at this area a lot recently in the context of the 10200 fix, and now I think we can go ahead with the 2

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/68948 (wrong code generation due to invalid constructor call)

2016-02-18 Thread Patrick Palka
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > OK. Is this an approval of the 2nd patch for next stage 1?

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/68948 (wrong code generation due to invalid constructor call)

2016-02-17 Thread Jason Merrill
OK. Jason

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/68948 (wrong code generation due to invalid constructor call)

2016-02-05 Thread Patrick Palka
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 02/05/2016 09:13 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> On 02/05/2016 07:54 AM, Patrick Palka wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Patrick Palka wrote: >>> The compiler correctly detects and diagnoses invalid constructor calls such as C::C

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/68948 (wrong code generation due to invalid constructor call)

2016-02-05 Thread Jason Merrill
On 02/05/2016 09:13 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 02/05/2016 07:54 AM, Patrick Palka wrote: On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Patrick Palka wrote: The compiler correctly detects and diagnoses invalid constructor calls such as C::C () in a non-template context but it fails to do so while processing a class tem

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/68948 (wrong code generation due to invalid constructor call)

2016-02-05 Thread Jason Merrill
On 02/05/2016 07:54 AM, Patrick Palka wrote: On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Patrick Palka wrote: The compiler correctly detects and diagnoses invalid constructor calls such as C::C () in a non-template context but it fails to do so while processing a class template. [ Section 3.4.3.1 of the standard is w

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/68948 (wrong code generation due to invalid constructor call)

2016-02-05 Thread Patrick Palka
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Patrick Palka wrote: The compiler correctly detects and diagnoses invalid constructor calls such as C::C () in a non-template context but it fails to do so while processing a class template. [ Section 3.4.3.1 of the standard is what makes these forms of constructor calls ill

[PATCH] Fix PR c++/68948 (wrong code generation due to invalid constructor call)

2016-02-04 Thread Patrick Palka
The compiler correctly detects and diagnoses invalid constructor calls such as C::C () in a non-template context but it fails to do so while processing a class template. [ Section 3.4.3.1 of the standard is what makes these forms of constructor calls illegal -- see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sho