On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 09:57:12AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > Hmm, Patrick made a similar change and then reverted it for PR90996.
> > But it makes sense to me; when we replace placeholders, it's appropriate
> > to look at the whole aggregate initialization rather than the innermost
> > CONSTRUCTOR that has DMIs. Patrick, was there a reason that change
> > seemed wrong to you, or was it just unnecessary for the bug you were
> > working on?
>
> The reverted change and Jakub's more general patch seem right/safe to
> me FWIW, I just couldn't come up with a testcase that demonstrated its
> need at the time unfortunately.
So is the patch ok for trunk then?
Apparently it is also a recent regression on 11 branch (since Marek's
r11-9711) when compiling firefox, ok for 11.3 as well?
> > > 2022-04-15 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > PR c++/105256
> > > * typeck2.cc (process_init_constructor_array,
> > > process_init_constructor_record, process_init_constructor_union):
> > > Move
> > > CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY flag from CONSTRUCTOR elements to
> > > the
> > > containing CONSTRUCTOR.
> > >
> > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/pr105256.C: New test.
Jakub
