This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix PR34081/C++ ICE in s390_function_value
On Nov 23, 2007 4:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 04:00:03PM +0100, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> > > The middle-end parts are ok. The frontend parts would then qualify
> > > as obvious apart from
> > >
> > > bl = current_binding_level;
> > > ! allocate_struct_function (decl1, dependent_type_p (restype));
> > >
> > > where I wonder if we shouldn't use processing_template_p instead of
> > > dependent_type_p?
> > You mean processing_template_decl?!
> processing_template_decl, sure.
> I believe non-dependent types should be already laid out by the time
> this is called and therefore dependent_type_p (restype) should work
> just fine as the argument.
> Perhaps Richard wanted to pass processing_template_decl because computing it
> is cheaper?
I was mainly worried about possible side-effects of dependent_type_p (as
I don't know the C++ frontend good enough). And I remember us using
processing_template_decl in similar places.
But yes, a C++ FE maintainer needs to look at this portion of the patch