From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-485672-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 108282 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2018 17:36:57 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 108249 invoked by uid 89); 14 Sep 2018 17:36:56 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:36:55 +0000
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25])	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))	(No client certificate requested)	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 308E21B9B	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:36:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-68.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.68])	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C85CF2010CF1;	Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:36:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w8EHanQs023589;	Fri, 14 Sep 2018 19:36:49 +0200
Received: (from jakub@localhost)	by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id w8EHalfB023588;	Fri, 14 Sep 2018 19:36:47 +0200
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:41:00 -0000
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: C++ PATCH to implement P1064R0, Virtual Function Calls in Constant Expressions
Message-ID: <20180914173647.GR8250@tucnak>
Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
References: <20180914171950.GE5587@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180914171950.GE5587@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2018-09/txt/msg00775.txt.bz2

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