This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable types
On Mar 4, 2005, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> + 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.
Works for me. We can always extend it later, should the ISO C++
committee make a decision different from ours.
Patch will follow hopefully later today.
> Has there been any discussion of this in the ISO committee? Or prior
> are in other compilers? Including previous versions of G++?
Not that I know.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}