On 4/10/24 13:10, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 06:43:02PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
The following fixes a mismatch in COMPOUND_EXPR handling in
tsubst_expr vs tsubst_stmt where the latter allows a stmt in
operand zero but the
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 07:10:52PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Ah, I saw the bugzilla patches and wanted this version to be sent
> because I think the COMPOUND_EXPR inconsistency is odd. So Jason,
> please still have a look, not necessarily because of the bug
> which can be fixed in multiple
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 06:43:02PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > The following fixes a mismatch in COMPOUND_EXPR handling in
> > tsubst_expr vs tsubst_stmt where the latter allows a stmt in
> > operand zero but the former doesn't. This makes a
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 06:43:02PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> The following fixes a mismatch in COMPOUND_EXPR handling in
> tsubst_expr vs tsubst_stmt where the latter allows a stmt in
> operand zero but the former doesn't. This makes a difference
> for the case at hand because when the
The following fixes a mismatch in COMPOUND_EXPR handling in
tsubst_expr vs tsubst_stmt where the latter allows a stmt in
operand zero but the former doesn't. This makes a difference
for the case at hand because when the COMPOUND_EXPR is wrapped
inside an ANNOTATE_EXPR it gets handled by
