On 3/11/22 11:46, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/1/22 00:10, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/13/21 12:05 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
In the below testcase, the expression of the atomic constraint after
substitution is (in
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 3/1/22 00:10, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > > On 1/13/21 12:05 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > In the below testcase, the expression of the atomic constraint after
> > > > substitution is (int *) NON_LVAL
On 3/1/22 00:10, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/13/21 12:05 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
In the below testcase, the expression of the atomic constraint after
substitution is (int *) NON_LVALUE_EXPR <1> != 0B which is not a C++
constant expression, but its TREE_
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 1/13/21 12:05 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > In the below testcase, the expression of the atomic constraint after
> > substitution is (int *) NON_LVALUE_EXPR <1> != 0B which is not a C++
> > constant expression, but its TREE_CONSTANT flag is set (from b
On 1/13/21 12:05 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
In the below testcase, the expression of the atomic constraint after
substitution is (int *) NON_LVALUE_EXPR <1> != 0B which is not a C++
constant expression, but its TREE_CONSTANT flag is set (from build2),
so satisfy_atom fails to notice that it's non-c
In the below testcase, the expression of the atomic constraint after
substitution is (int *) NON_LVALUE_EXPR <1> != 0B which is not a C++
constant expression, but its TREE_CONSTANT flag is set (from build2),
so satisfy_atom fails to notice that it's non-constant (and we end
up tripping over the ass
