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,

Reply via email to