On May 25, 2016, at 3:40 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:28:51PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
>> I think:
>>
>> g++.dg/pr65295.C
>>
>> can be updated to use c++14 as well. It is the last one that needs updating.
>
> Thus the following. (It'd be wrong to
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:28:51PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On May 24, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > On 23/05/2016 21:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> +// PR c++/70735
> >> +// { dg-do run { target c++1y } }
> >> +
> > [...]
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
> >> +// PR
On May 24, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 23/05/2016 21:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> +// PR c++/70735
>> +// { dg-do run { target c++1y } }
>> +
> [...]
>> @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
>> +// PR c++/70735
>> +// { dg-do run { target c++1y } }
> I'm changing these c++1y
Hi,
On 23/05/2016 21:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
+// PR c++/70735
+// { dg-do run { target c++1y } }
+
[...]
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+// PR c++/70735
+// { dg-do run { target c++1y } }
I'm changing these c++1y to c++14.
Paolo.
Here we were failing to handle static locals referred to from a generic
lambda properly: we decided that in that situation rather than try to
look up the primary decl for the variable (since its function is
probably out of scope when the lambda op() is instantiated), we can just
build a new