From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9786 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2016 14:49:23 -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 9773 invoked by uid 89); 6 Apr 2016 14:49:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=rvalues 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; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:49:21 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 351437F351; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:49:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.10.116.28] (ovpn-116-28.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.116.28]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u36EnJBb011050; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 10:49:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [C++ PATCH] PR 70501, ICE in verify ctor sanity To: Nathan Sidwell References: <5702A3C5.20103@acm.org> <570414B0.7090703@redhat.com> <57042C71.5000205@acm.org> Cc: GCC Patches From: Jason Merrill Message-ID: <570521EC.4070104@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:49:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <57042C71.5000205@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2 On 04/05/2016 05:21 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 04/05/16 12:40, Jason Merrill wrote: > >> It's not clear to me that we really need a TARGET_EXPR for vector values. Since >> one element of a vector can't refer to another, we don't need the ctx->ctor >> handling. Perhaps we should handle vectors like we do PMF types in >> cxx_eval_bare_aggregate? > > That may be abstractly better, but we do currently wrap constructors in > target_exprs for vector compound_literals (which is what I was > following). See the get_target_expr_sfinae calls in > finish_compound_literal for instance. That happens for the '(v4si){(0, > 0)}' subexpression of the testcase. Sure, but that also seems unnecessary; vector rvalues don't have object identity the way class and array rvalues do. Jason