| Message ID | CAFOgFcTDQBwaA1Mq+9yy5FzAj5tHCuqfV3E+bKSFqR6gZogpog@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
(Adding other C++ maintainers in case someone else wants to have a stab.) Ping? Ollie On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Ollie Wild <aaw@google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > The formatting doesn't match GCC coding conventions in several ways. > > You don't have spaces before (, and ( shouldn't be at the end of line if > > possible. > > Updated patch attached. > > Ollie
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Ollie Wild <aaw@google.com> wrote: > (Adding other C++ maintainers in case someone else wants to have a stab.) > > Ping? > > Ollie I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to iterate until we find the rightmost element in a compound_expr chain, but I don't think they are neither common nor long enough to matter. It looks like a good fix, but I would rather have a C++ maintainer give final approval for gcc-4_7-branch and trunk. In the meantime, should we install it in google/gcc-4_7? I can deal with any merge conflicts, in case the patch needs more work for the upstream branches. Thanks. Diego.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote: > > I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to iterate until we find the > rightmost element in a compound_expr chain, but I don't think they are > neither common nor long enough to matter. Yeah, that was my thinking. I can certainly do whatever the maintainers want. > It looks like a good fix, but I would rather have a C++ maintainer > give final approval for gcc-4_7-branch and trunk. In the meantime, > should we install it in google/gcc-4_7? I can deal with any merge > conflicts, in case the patch needs more work for the upstream > branches. I'll go ahead and submit to google/gcc-4_7, then. Thanks, Ollie
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Ollie Wild <aaw@google.com> wrote: > (Adding other C++ maintainers in case someone else wants to have a stab.) > > Ping? I consider Jason to be the expert on this; so let see what he says. -- Gaby > > Ollie > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Ollie Wild <aaw@google.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote: >> > >> > The formatting doesn't match GCC coding conventions in several ways. >> > You don't have spaces before (, and ( shouldn't be at the end of line if >> > possible. >> >> Updated patch attached. >> >> Ollie
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Ollie Wild <aaw@google.com> wrote: > > (Adding other C++ maintainers in case someone else wants to have a > > stab.) > > > > Ping? > > I consider Jason to be the expert on this; so let see what he says. > > -- Gaby Jason, any idea when you can look at this? The patch is about as short as they come, so it shouldn't take long to review. Thanks, Ollie
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Ollie Wild <aaw@google.com> wrote: > > Jason, any idea when you can look at this? > > The patch is about as short as they come, so it shouldn't take long to > review. Ping?
OK, sorry for the delay. Jason
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
> OK, sorry for the delay.
No worries. Thanks.
Submitted to trunk and gcc-4_7-branch as r190834 and r190839.
Ollie
diff --git a/gcc/cp/call.c b/gcc/cp/call.c index 5345f2b..f3a73af 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/call.c +++ b/gcc/cp/call.c @@ -8924,6 +8924,12 @@ extend_ref_init_temps_1 (tree decl, tree init, VEC(tree,gc) **cleanups) tree sub = init; tree *p; STRIP_NOPS (sub); + if (TREE_CODE (sub) == COMPOUND_EXPR) + { + TREE_OPERAND (sub, 1) + = extend_ref_init_temps_1 (decl, TREE_OPERAND (sub, 1), cleanups); + return init; + } if (TREE_CODE (sub) != ADDR_EXPR) return init; /* Deal with binding to a subobject. */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/lifetime3.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/lifetime3.C new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d099699 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/lifetime3.C @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +// PR c++/26714 +// { dg-do run } + +extern "C" void abort(); + +bool ok = false; +struct A { + A() { } + ~A() { if (!ok) abort(); } +}; + +struct B { + static A foo() { return A(); } +}; + +B b_g; + +struct scoped_ptr { + B* operator->() const { return &b_g; } + B* get() const { return &b_g; } +}; + +B *get() { return &b_g; } + +int main() +{ + scoped_ptr f; + const A& ref1 = f->foo(); + const A& ref2 = f.get()->foo(); + const A& ref3 = get()->foo(); + const A& ref4 = B::foo(); + B *pf = f.get(); + const A& ref5 = pf->foo(); + + + ok = true; +}