Hi,
On 08/27/2014 04:19 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/27/2014 04:41 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
.. two additional remarks (maybe obvious, I don't know):
- It also appears to work - for sure for all the tests in c++/52892 +
the tests in c++/52282 not involving data members (eg, the original one)
-
On 08/27/2014 04:41 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
.. two additional remarks (maybe obvious, I don't know):
- It also appears to work - for sure for all the tests in c++/52892 +
the tests in c++/52282 not involving data members (eg, the original one)
- simply unconditionally calling STRIP_NOPS right af
.. two additional remarks (maybe obvious, I don't know):
- It also appears to work - for sure for all the tests in c++/52892 +
the tests in c++/52282 not involving data members (eg, the original one)
- simply unconditionally calling STRIP_NOPS right after the
cxx_eval_constant_expression at the
Hi again,
On 08/26/2014 08:58 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/26/2014 12:01 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
the difference, for the latter and for more complex cases, is that
adjust_temp_type calls cp_fold_convert which ends up returning a
NOP_EXPR (eg, build in fold_convert_loc).
Perhaps we should a
Hi,
On 08/26/2014 08:58 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 08/26/2014 12:01 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
the difference, for the latter and for more complex cases, is that
adjust_temp_type calls cp_fold_convert which ends up returning a
NOP_EXPR (eg, build in fold_convert_loc).
Perhaps we should address
On 08/26/2014 12:01 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
the difference, for the latter and for more complex cases, is that
adjust_temp_type calls cp_fold_convert which ends up returning a
NOP_EXPR (eg, build in fold_convert_loc).
Perhaps we should address this in adjust_temp_type, either by ignoring
the
