C++ PATCH to implement P1064R0, Virtual Function Calls in Constant Expressions
Jakub Jelinek
jakub@redhat.com
Fri Sep 14 17:41:00 GMT 2018
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 01:19:50PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> + /* We expect something in the form of &x.D.2103.D.2094; get x. */
> + if (TREE_CODE (obj) != ADDR_EXPR)
> + return t;
Shouldn't it then be a gcc_assert instead, or code like:
if (TREE_CODE (obj) != ADDR_EXPR)
{
if (!ctx->quiet)
error (...);
*non_constant_p = true;
}
to make it clear that we haven't handled it and don't consider it a constant
expression?
Jakub
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list