Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressabletypes

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar  3, 2005, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > I think this is the wrong approach.  The front-end and not
> > the gimplifier should be creating these temporaries, I mentioned
> > this already in the bug.
>
>
> How about this?
>
> I tried with the TARGET_EXPR by itself, but it failed to be recognized
> as an lvalue, so I introduced the compound expr.

Introducing a TARGET_EXPR makes sense to me.

> Testing on x86_64-linux-gnu.  Ok to install if it passes?

> +    foo ((B){x});

I don't think (B){x} should be an lvalue, C99 notwithstanding.  B(3) is 
not be an lavalue; I don't see why "(B){x}" should be.  Conceptually, 
the compound-literal syntax is just a way of invoking an imaginary 
constuctor that has an argument corresponding to each non-static data 
member.

Has there been any discussion of this in the ISO committee?  Or prior 
are in other compilers?  Including previous versions of G++?

(These are not rhetorical questions; I really don't know.)

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304