This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA (make_dispatcher_decl): PATCH for c++/83911, ICE with multiversioned constructor
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 09:50:10 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFA (make_dispatcher_decl): PATCH for c++/83911, ICE with multiversioned constructor
- References: <CADzB+2mJ9yJZ83o5_KhSFkikbqoUrqsjutVcy=+7eToDVkg2_Q@mail.gmail.com> <CADzB+2kKWMi9NpBq_RKWGqW1WPjg3c-gHY8UWg0TDDp=TAgQPw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
> Ping
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
>> As I mentioned in the PR, the problem here is that we're replacing a
>> constructor with a dispatcher function which doesn't look much like a
>> constructor. This patch adjusts make_dispatcher_decl to make it look
>> more like the functions it dispatches to, but other things are certain
>> to break for similar reasons down the road. A proper solution should
>> be more transparent, like thunks.
>>
>> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Does this seem worth applying to fix the
>> regression?
The patch looks reasonable to me, you probably know best whether
the cp/ parts are risky or not ;)
So - OK from my POV.
And yes, thunks may be a better representation for the dispatcher.
Richard.