On 05/18/2016 10:22 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 18/05/2016 16:08, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 05:57 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 17/05/2016 20:15, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 04:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
... alternately, if the substance of my patchlet is right, we could
Hi,
On 18/05/2016 16:08, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 05:57 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 17/05/2016 20:15, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 04:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
... alternately, if the substance of my patchlet is right, we could
simplify a bit the logic per the below.
On 05/17/2016 05:57 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 17/05/2016 20:15, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 04:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
... alternately, if the substance of my patchlet is right, we could
simplify a bit the logic per the below.
Here's a well-formed variant that was accepted by
Hi,
On 17/05/2016 20:15, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 04:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
... alternately, if the substance of my patchlet is right, we could
simplify a bit the logic per the below.
Here's a well-formed variant that was accepted by 4.5. Does your
patch fix it? I also
On 05/17/2016 04:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
... alternately, if the substance of my patchlet is right, we could
simplify a bit the logic per the below.
Here's a well-formed variant that was accepted by 4.5. Does your patch
fix it? I also think with your patch we can drop the C++11 check,
... alternately, if the substance of my patchlet is right, we could
simplify a bit the logic per the below.
Thanks,
Paolo.
/
Index: cp/call.c
===
--- cp/call.c (revision 236309)
+++ cp/call.c (working copy)
Hi,
in this ICE during error recovery, the check in convert_like_real:
if (CONSTRUCTOR_NELTS (expr) == 0
&& FUNCTION_FIRST_USER_PARMTYPE (convfn) != void_list_node)
is reached for a PARM_DECL as expr. I think that the correct way to
avoid in general such problem is adding
