From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18185 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2013 14:53:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 18174 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jan 2013 14:53:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:53:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0BEr9v6025305 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:53:09 -0500 Received: from [10.3.113.66] (ovpn-113-66.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.66]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0BE3lwB016658; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:03:47 -0500 Message-ID: <50F01BC3.1030703@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:53:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dodji Seketeli CC: Gabriel Dos Reis , GCC Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR c++/55663 - constexpr function templ instantiation considered non-const as alias templ arg References: <877gnnwzdg.fsf@redhat.com> <87hamqtlum.fsf@redhat.com> <87k3rlrrkw.fsf@redhat.com> <87fw28ovh5.fsf@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87fw28ovh5.fsf@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg00612.txt.bz2 On 01/11/2013 05:38 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote: > but when I read the code, it looks like this is not necessary. Am I > missing something? In any case, I haven't put that code in the new > coerce_innermost_template_parms. Is that OK? I agree that it seems unnecessary. But to be safe, let's leave lookup_template_class_1 alone until after 4.8 branches. Jason