On 7/25/23 16:30, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 04:24:39PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/25/23 15:59, Marek Polacek wrote:
Something like this, then? I see that cp_parser_initializer_clause et al
offer further opportunities (because they sometimes use a dummy too) but
this
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 04:24:39PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 7/25/23 15:59, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Something like this, then? I see that cp_parser_initializer_clause et al
> > offer further opportunities (because they sometimes use a dummy too) but
> > this should be a good start.
>
>
On 7/25/23 15:59, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 01:44:17PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/20/23 17:58, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 03:51:32PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 02:37:07PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/20/23 14:13, Marek
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 01:44:17PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 7/20/23 17:58, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 03:51:32PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 02:37:07PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > On 7/20/23 14:13, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > >
On 7/20/23 15:51, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 02:37:07PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/20/23 14:13, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 10:11:27AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
Bootstrapped/regtested on
On 7/20/23 17:58, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 03:51:32PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 02:37:07PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/20/23 14:13, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 10:11:27AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023,
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 03:51:32PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 02:37:07PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 7/20/23 14:13, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 10:11:27AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Jul 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 02:37:07PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 7/20/23 14:13, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 10:11:27AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Jul 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,
On 7/20/23 14:13, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 10:11:27AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk and branches?
Looks reasonable to me.
Thanks.
Though I wonder if
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 10:11:27AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk and branches?
>
> Looks reasonable to me.
Thanks.
> Though I wonder if we could also fix this by not
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk and branches?
Looks reasonable to me.
Though I wonder if we could also fix this by not checking potentiality
at all in this case? The problematic call to
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk and branches?
-- >8 --
is_really_empty_class is liable to crash when it gets an incomplete
or dependent type. Since r11-557, we pass the yet-uninstantiated
class type S<0> of the PARM_DECL s to is_really_empty_class -- because
of the
12 matches
Mail list logo
