OK.
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:24:20PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:45:11PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> >>
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:24:20PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:45:11PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >> > The
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 2:50 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:45:11PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > The diagnostic code in build_new{,_1} was using maybe_constant_value to
>>
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:45:11PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > The diagnostic code in build_new{,_1} was using maybe_constant_value to fold
> > the array length, but that breaks while parsing a template, because we
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> The diagnostic code in build_new{,_1} was using maybe_constant_value to fold
> the array length, but that breaks while parsing a template, because we might
> then leak template codes to the constexpr machinery.
>
>
The diagnostic code in build_new{,_1} was using maybe_constant_value to fold
the array length, but that breaks while parsing a template, because we might
then leak template codes to the constexpr machinery.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk/8?
2018-05-23 Marek Polacek