From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-498486-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 89385 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2015 13:13:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 89349 invoked by uid 48); 1 Oct 2015 13:13:34 -0000
From: "frankhb1989 at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/67795] Wrong code generated for conditional expression with cast
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 13:13:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: frankhb1989 at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-67795-4-zcr45xHbHI@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-67795-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-67795-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67795

--- Comment #10 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #7)
> Hmm, with the static_cast, the front-end produces:
> 
> <<cleanup_point return <retval> = (struct string_view &) (struct string_view
> *) NON_LVALUE_EXPR <(struct string_view &) &(n != 0 ?
> std::experimental::fundamentals_v1::basic_string_view<char>::remove_prefix
> ((struct string_view *) s, n);, *s; : *s)>>>;
> 
> while without it, I get:
> 
> <<cleanup_point return <retval> = (struct string_view &) (n != 0 ?
> std::experimental::fundamentals_v1::basic_string_view<char>::remove_prefix
> ((struct string_view *) s, n);, (struct string_view *) s; : (struct
> string_view *) s)>>;
> 
> I also find it fishy.
> 
> (note that you need -O2 or more for the warning)

Thank you for the suggestion.

I find these diagnostics exist with -O2 or -O3. Then the output is empty ...

clang++ -Weverything with -O2/-O3 still behaves as I expect. (Only
[-Wmissing-prototypes].)