On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:24:06 -0400 Patrick Palka <ppa...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 7:26 PM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via > Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.cc b/gcc/cp/tree.cc > > index 131b212ff73..19dfb3ed782 100644 > > --- a/gcc/cp/tree.cc > > +++ b/gcc/cp/tree.cc > > @@ -1173,7 +1173,7 @@ build_cplus_array_type (tree elt_type, tree > > index_type, int dependent) > > } > > > > /* Avoid spurious warnings with VLAs (c++/54583). */ > > - if (TYPE_SIZE (t) && EXPR_P (TYPE_SIZE (t))) > > + if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (TYPE_SIZE (t))) > > Hmm, this change seems undesirable... mhm, yes that is misleading. I'll prepare a patch to revert this. Let me have a look if there were other such CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P changes that we'd want to revert. thanks,