From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15630 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2001 11:04:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14933 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2001 11:02:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (62.30.164.150) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2001 11:02:36 -0000 Received: (from jason@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fB8B0vH11648; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 11:00:57 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: jason set sender to jason@redhat.com using -f To: "John David Anglin" Cc: mark@codesourcery.com (Mark Mitchell), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: C++ pcc struct return fix References: <200112080454.fB84sYpm010722@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> From: Jason Merrill In-Reply-To: <200112080454.fB84sYpm010722@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> ("John David Anglin"'s message of "Fri, 7 Dec 2001 23:54:34 -0500 (EST)") Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 03:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00938.txt.bz2 >>>>> "John" == John David Anglin writes: >> Did we ever reach resolution on this issue? > No. >> In particular, did we get a patch approved for the mainline? For >> the 3.0 branch? Is there a patch that needs review, but that hasn't >> been reviewed? (If so, send it to me, and I will review it.) > Jason approved the patch to semantics.c but asked that the comment > about DIRECT_BIND in cp-tree.h reflect this usage. So, I sent this > update. > , I would say "It also forces direct-initialization in cases where other parts of the compiler have already generated a temporary, such as reference initialization and the catch parameter." Thanks. > Is this OK? Jason didn't say anything about the branch in his response. It's also OK for the branch. Jason