From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16079 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2014 15:45:36 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 16066 invoked by uid 89); 2 Sep 2014 15:45:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:45:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s82FjVI0004006 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:45:31 -0400 Received: from [10.10.116.19] ([10.10.116.19]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s82FjUpM007891; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:45:30 -0400 Message-ID: <5405E617.9020507@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:45:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paolo Carlini , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [C++ Patch] PR 58102 aka DR 1405 References: <5404790A.8020402@oracle.com> <5405CFF4.7060008@redhat.com> <5405D174.1050509@oracle.com> <5405D402.7020807@redhat.com> <5405DD3E.7030506@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <5405DD3E.7030506@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00157.txt.bz2 On 09/02/2014 11:07 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Anyway, what about the below? Certainly works for the tests which we > have got. Hmm. This is definitely an improvement, as it allows a subset of a non-volatile glvalue of literal type that refers to a non-volatile object whose lifetime began within the evalution of e But it doesn't cover all of that, and in any case we shouldn't need to explicitly handle that just for types with mutable subobjects. I think perhaps it would be better to remove that hunk as in your initial patch and replace it with a check in constant_value_1 and an explanation in non_const_var_error. Jason