From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16841 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2005 13:37:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16550 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2005 13:36:58 -0000 Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 13:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050305133658.16549.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "aoliva at redhat dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050220111234.20103.falk@debian.org> References: <20050220111234.20103.falk@debian.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/20103] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE in create_tmp_var with C99 style struct initializer X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00642.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-05 13:36 ------- Subject: Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable types On Mar 4, 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote: >> + foo ((B){x}); > I don't think (B){x} should be an lvalue, C99 notwithstanding. B(3) > is not be an lavalue; I don't see why "(B){x}" should be. Works for me. We can always extend it later, should the ISO C++ committee make a decision different from ours. Patch will follow hopefully later today. > Has there been any discussion of this in the ISO committee? Or prior > are in other compilers? Including previous versions of G++? Not that I know. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20103