On 4/3/20 4:57 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 4/2/20 2:19 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
This PR reveals that cxx_eval_bare_aggregate and cxx_eval_store_expression
do
not antic
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > On 4/2/20 2:19 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2 Apr 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > >
> > > > This PR reveals that cxx_eval_bare_aggregate and
> > > > cxx_eval_store_expression
> > > > do
> > > > no
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 4/2/20 2:19 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Apr 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
> >
> > > This PR reveals that cxx_eval_bare_aggregate and cxx_eval_store_expression
> > > do
> > > not anticipate that a constructor element's initializer could mutate
On 4/2/20 2:19 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
This PR reveals that cxx_eval_bare_aggregate and cxx_eval_store_expression do
not anticipate that a constructor element's initializer could mutate the
underlying CONSTRUCTOR. Evaluation of the initializer could ad
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020, Patrick Palka wrote:
> This PR reveals that cxx_eval_bare_aggregate and cxx_eval_store_expression do
> not anticipate that a constructor element's initializer could mutate the
> underlying CONSTRUCTOR. Evaluation of the initializer could add new elements
> to
> the underlying
This PR reveals that cxx_eval_bare_aggregate and cxx_eval_store_expression do
not anticipate that a constructor element's initializer could mutate the
underlying CONSTRUCTOR. Evaluation of the initializer could add new elements to
the underlying CONSTRUCTOR, thereby potentially invalidating any po
