[PATCH] Proposed patch to fix bug id, 89796 on bugzilla

[PATCH] Proposed patch to fix bug id, 89796 on bugzilla

[Nicholas Krause]

Not sure if this is a correct fix to this bug found here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89796 but
comments are welcome. If a backtrace is required please
let me know. I am just sending it to the development list
for review to make sure it's OK in terms of my understanding
the code.

Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>
---
 gcc/cp/constraint.cc | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/gcc/cp/constraint.cc b/gcc/cp/constraint.cc
index 9884eb0db50..a78d0a9a49b 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constraint.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/constraint.cc
@@ -1882,7 +1882,7 @@ tsubst_requires_expr (tree t, tree args,
   tree parms = TREE_OPERAND (t, 0);
   if (parms)
     {
-      parms = tsubst_constraint_variables (parms, args, complain, in_decl);
+      parms = tsubst_constraint_variables (PARM_CONSTR_PARMS (parms), args, complain, in_decl);
       if (parms == error_mark_node)
         return error_mark_node;
     }
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] Proposed patch to fix bug id, 89796 on bugzilla

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:39, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not sure if this is a correct fix to this bug found here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89796 but
> comments are welcome. If a backtrace is required please
> let me know. I am just sending it to the development list
> for review to make sure it's OK in terms of my understanding
> the code.

That's what the gcc-patches list is for.

Re: [PATCH] Proposed patch to fix bug id, 89796 on bugzilla

[nick]

On 2019-03-25 9:25 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:39, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Not sure if this is a correct fix to this bug found here:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89796 but
>> comments are welcome. If a backtrace is required please
>> let me know. I am just sending it to the development list
>> for review to make sure it's OK in terms of my understanding
>> the code.
> 
> That's what the gcc-patches list is for.
> 

Sorry it was sent there too. Didn't know which list was the correct one for
reviewing RFC patches.

Nick

Re: [PATCH] Proposed patch to fix bug id, 89796 on bugzilla

[Jonathan Wakely]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 13:26, nick <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2019-03-25 9:25 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:39, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Not sure if this is a correct fix to this bug found here:
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89796 but
> >> comments are welcome. If a backtrace is required please
> >> let me know. I am just sending it to the development list
> >> for review to make sure it's OK in terms of my understanding
> >> the code.
> >
> > That's what the gcc-patches list is for.
> >
>
> Sorry it was sent there too. Didn't know which list was the correct one for
> reviewing RFC patches.

https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches

Re: [PATCH] Proposed patch to fix bug id, 89796 on bugzilla

[nick]

On 2019-03-25 9:29 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 13:26, nick <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2019-03-25 9:25 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 12:39, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if this is a correct fix to this bug found here:
>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89796 but
>>>> comments are welcome. If a backtrace is required please
>>>> let me know. I am just sending it to the development list
>>>> for review to make sure it's OK in terms of my understanding
>>>> the code.
>>>
>>> That's what the gcc-patches list is for.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry it was sent there too. Didn't know which list was the correct one for
>> reviewing RFC patches.
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches
> 

Thanks Jonathan,

As for the patch documentation I will change the changelog after it's been reviewed. I'm 
newer to the code so would prefer it to be known correct and then I will just send a
a proper changelogged patch. Not that I normally wouldn't just would like to check
the code first before I sent a proper patch.

Nick