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 Mon, 2003-12-08 at 08:54, Jason Merrill wrote:
> 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.
> :)
Coming in late in the game here, I agree with Jason's comments, and the
patch is OK with the changes Jason suggested.
--
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
CodeSourcery, LLC