On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:16 AM Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 07:05:47AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:57 AM Marek Polacek
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 06:44:53AM -0700, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:07
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 07:05:47AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:57 AM Marek Polacek wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 06:44:53AM -0700, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:07 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here,
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:57 AM Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 06:44:53AM -0700, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:07 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Here, when considering the two 'insert' overloads, we look for aggregate
> >
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 06:44:53AM -0700, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:07 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> >
> > Here, when considering the two 'insert' overloads, we look for aggregate
> > conversions from the same initializer-list to B<3> or
> > initiali
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:07 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Here, when considering the two 'insert' overloads, we look for aggregate
> conversions from the same initializer-list to B<3> or
> initializer_list>. But since my fix for reshape_init overhead on the
> PR14179 testcase we r
Here, when considering the two 'insert' overloads, we look for aggregate
conversions from the same initializer-list to B<3> or
initializer_list>. But since my fix for reshape_init overhead on the
PR14179 testcase we reshaped the initializer-list directly, leading to an
error when we then tried to
