https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #23 from Marc Glisse ---
Author: glisse
Date: Fri Oct 3 19:57:01 2014
New Revision: 215872
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215872&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-10-03 Marc Glisse
PR c++/54427
PR c++/57198
PR c++/58
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #22 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #21)
> One argument against the sequence point is that we don't have one for ?: .
> If we add one for ?: several testcases regress, so we have to make sure to
> only do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
--- Comment #21 from Marc Glisse ---
One argument against the sequence point is that we don't have one for ?: . If
we add one for ?: several testcases regress, so we have to make sure to only do
the save_expr/compound_expr thing if there are side
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jenkinsj89 at yahoo dot ca
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |rejects-valid
Priority|P2
