On 3/5/25 8:00 AM, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
Ping for this. Or should this cleanup wait till GCC16?
OK, let's go ahead with it now.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:49:03AM +1100, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 10:20:05AM -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
[snip]
@@ -18486,6 +18562,12 @@
Ping for this. Or should this cleanup wait till GCC16?
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 12:49:03AM +1100, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 10:20:05AM -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > @@ -18486,6 +18562,12 @@ dependent_operand_p (tree t)
> > > {
> > >while (TREE_CODE (t
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 10:20:05AM -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > @@ -18486,6 +18562,12 @@ dependent_operand_p (tree t)
> > > {
> > >while (TREE_CODE (t) == IMPLICIT_CONV_EXPR)
> > > t = TREE_OPERAND (t, 0);
> > > +
> > > +
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 10:20:05AM -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > @@ -18486,6 +18562,12 @@ dependent_operand_p (tree t)
> > {
> >while (TREE_CODE (t) == IMPLICIT_CONV_EXPR)
> > t = TREE_OPERAND (t, 0);
> > +
> > + /* If we contain a TU_LOCAL_ENTITY assume we're non-dependent;
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 10:20:05AM -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2024, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
>
> > This version rewords all "ignored exposures" language.
> >
> > I haven't fixed up the issue with DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATIONS for this
> > patch. I'll try to get to that as a separa
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
> This version rewords all "ignored exposures" language.
>
> I haven't fixed up the issue with DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATIONS for this
> patch. I'll try to get to that as a separate patch if I find the time,
> but it's not 100% needed here I don't think.
