Re: [PATCH] Fix PR34081/C++ ICE in s390_function_value

["Andreas Krebbel" <Andreas dot Krebbel at de dot ibm dot com>]

> 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?!

I don't have a strong opinion about that.  From the code of
dependent_type_p it looks like types defined outside template scope
are never considered dependent.  So far so clear but what about the
other direction?  What kind of type definitions inside template scope
are "independent" and is it in any way benefical to invoke
aggregate_value_p for them to have a correct value in
current_function_returns_struct?

Could a C++ hacker please shed some light on this?

Bye,

-Andreas-