Hi,
On 28/07/2016 16:28, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Ah sorry, I missed the *type* bit. The below passes testing on x86_64-linux.
I don't think we need to check the type again after cxx_constant_value?!?
No, we don't. The patch is OK.
While fi
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Ah sorry, I missed the *type* bit. The below passes testing on x86_64-linux.
> I don't think we need to check the type again after cxx_constant_value?!?
No, we don't. The patch is OK.
> While finally spending a decent amount of time on thi
Hi,
On 18/07/2016 20:16, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
On 30/06/2016 19:49, Jason Merrill wrote:
I think we should check the type before calling cxx_constant_value.
Ok, I got the point. I'm not sure however how far we want to go with this
and wh
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
> On 30/06/2016 19:49, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> I think we should check the type before calling cxx_constant_value.
>>
> Ok, I got the point. I'm not sure however how far we want to go with this
> and which kind of consistency we want to achiev
Hi Jason,
and sorry about the delay in following up, a few days of vacations...
On 30/06/2016 19:49, Jason Merrill wrote:
I think we should check the type before calling cxx_constant_value.
Ok, I got the point. I'm not sure however how far we want to go with
this and which kind of consistenc
