On Wed, 18 Mar 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 3/18/20 11:58 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Mar 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 17 Mar 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 3/16/20 1:39 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > > In this PR, we are performing constexpr
On 3/18/20 11:58 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/16/20 1:39 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
In this PR, we are performing constexpr evaluation of a CONSTRUCTOR of type
union U which looks like
{.a=foo (&)}.
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > On 3/16/20 1:39 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > In this PR, we are performing constexpr evaluation of a CONSTRUCTOR of
> > > type
> > > union U which looks like
> > >
> > >{.a=foo (&)}.
> > >
> > >
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 3/16/20 1:39 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > In this PR, we are performing constexpr evaluation of a CONSTRUCTOR of type
> > union U which looks like
> >
> >{.a=foo (&)}.
> >
> > Since the function foo takes a reference to the CONSTRUCTOR we're
On 3/16/20 1:39 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
In this PR, we are performing constexpr evaluation of a CONSTRUCTOR of type
union U which looks like
{.a=foo (&)}.
Since the function foo takes a reference to the CONSTRUCTOR we're building, it
could potentially modify the CONSTRUCTOR from under us.
In this PR, we are performing constexpr evaluation of a CONSTRUCTOR of type
union U which looks like
{.a=foo (&)}.
Since the function foo takes a reference to the CONSTRUCTOR we're building, it
could potentially modify the CONSTRUCTOR from under us. In particular since U
is a union, the
