Hi,

On 17/11/2017 15:09, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I managed to spend much more time on the issue and I'm starting a new 
> thread with a mature - IMHO - proposal: the big thing is the use of 
> the existing check_array_designated_initializer in 
> process_init_constructor_array,  which calls maybe_constant_value, as 
> we want, and covers all the ill-formed cases which I can imagine. I'm 
> also tweaking a bit the parser to check the return value of 
> require_potential_rvalue_constant_expression in order to avoid 
> redundant diagnostic in some cases. Also, a couple more testcases 
> beyond the bug report.
I'm gently pinging this. I rebased it vs a very minor conflict due to 
Jakub's implementation of P0329R4. While I was at it, I'm also proposing 
a small tweak vs the previous version in the way 
check_array_designated_initializer is used: only if ce->index is 
non-null, more consistently with the current code. Or see the original post:

     https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg01481.html

Thanks!
Paolo.

///////////////////////////