On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 03/21/2017 01:33 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 03/20/2017 10:27 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 03/20/2017 05:51 PM, Ja
On 03/21/2017 01:33 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/20/2017 10:27 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/20/2017 05:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Martin Sebor
Since I've also spent some time on this: my take on this is that the C++ FE
should just follow C FE's suit and reject such initializations where
possible; it seems they've never worked reliably anyway, and bring more
harm than good. I don't see that rejecting such code would cause too much
troubl
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 03/20/2017 10:27 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/20/2017 05:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>
> At
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 09:08:49AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 03/20/2017 10:27 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > On 03/20/2017 05:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
On 03/21/2017 09:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 09:08:49AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
As I understand the schedule, the release is expected sometime
in early April. I leave on April 2 for a week, so I have only
until then. I don't think that leaves enough time. I'd be
unc
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 09:08:49AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> As I understand the schedule, the release is expected sometime
> in early April. I leave on April 2 for a week, so I have only
> until then. I don't think that leaves enough time. I'd be
> uncomfortable taking on a project this late
On 03/20/2017 10:27 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/20/2017 05:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is a minimal patch to avoid an ICE in CHKP upon
encountering one form of an initialize
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 03/20/2017 05:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> Attached is a minimal patch to avoid an ICE in CHKP upon
>>> encountering one form of an initializer for a flexible array
>>> member,
On 03/20/2017 05:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is a minimal patch to avoid an ICE in CHKP upon
encountering one form of an initializer for a flexible array
member, specifically the empty string:
int f ()
{
struct B { int n; ch
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Attached is a minimal patch to avoid an ICE in CHKP upon
> encountering one form of an initializer for a flexible array
> member, specifically the empty string:
>
> int f ()
> {
> struct B { int n; char a[]; };
>
> return ((struct
Attached is a minimal patch to avoid an ICE in CHKP upon
encountering one form of an initializer for a flexible array
member, specifically the empty string:
int f ()
{
struct B { int n; char a[]; };
return ((struct B){ 1, "" }).a[0];
}
Although GCC accepts (and doesn't ICE on) non
12 matches
Mail list logo
