Re: [C++ Patch / RFC] PR 45385

[Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>]

On 10/21/2011 04:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I think the fix for 35602 was wrong; instead of trying to suppress the 
> warning, we should avoid building expressions that trip it.  In this 
> case, the problem is a type mismatch in build_vec_init between 
> maxindex/iterator (ptrdiff_type_node) and array_type_nelts_total 
> (sizetype).  And indeed, converting (ptrdiff_t)-1 to unsigned changes 
> its sign.
>
> I think a better fix for 35602 would be to bail out of build_vec_init 
> exit early if maxindex is -1.
Ah great, thanks a lot. The below passes testing, if it's Ok I would be 
tempted to backport it to the 4_6-branch too after 4.6.2 is out..

Thanks again,
Paolo.

//////////////////////

Attachment: CL_45385_2
Description: Text document

Attachment: patch_45385_2
Description: Text document