This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ PATCH] [PR/13243] Detect more non constant expressions (regression in mainline)
On 08 Dec 2003 17:15:09 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> writes:
>
> | On 08 Dec 2003 05:27:12 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> |
> | > "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo@libero.it> writes:
> | >
> | > | Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> | > |
> | > | >> expression. Moreover, expressions like INDIRECT_REF and ADDR_EXPR are
> | > | >> always invalid as constant expressions.
> | > | >
> | > | > I am a bit nervous about that statement. References get transformed
> | > | > (from time to time) into INDIRECT_REF, but a reference can be a valid
> | > | > constant expression. The same is true for an ADDR_EXPR. Did you check
> | > | > that?
> | > |
> | > | Yes, I apologize for being unclear. What my patch disallows is "unary *" and
> | > | "unary &", which are directly built as INDIRECT_REF and ADDR_EXPR at parsing
> | > | time. If you look at the patch, the check is done within
> | > | cp_parser_unary_expression. I'm not disallowing those tree codes everywhere.
> | > | Does this sound better?
> | >
> | > Yes. Thanks.
> |
> | No. There are address constant-expressions, too, as described in 5.19p4.
>
> Hmm, I didn't mean the patch was correct; I meant his sentence was
> making sense to me :-)
And I didn't mean the patch was wrong, I meant his sentence was incorrect.
:)
Jason