* class.c (finalize_literal_type_property): Update conditions.
* method.c (defaulted_late_check): Set TYPE_HAS_CONSTEXPR_CTOR.
From-SVN: r175644
2011-06-29 Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
+ * class.c (finalize_literal_type_property): Update conditions.
+ * method.c (defaulted_late_check): Set TYPE_HAS_CONSTEXPR_CTOR.
+
* tree.c (build_vec_init_expr): Don't add TARGET_EXPR.
* typeck2.c (digest_init_r): Handle VEC_INIT_EXPR.
* semantics.c (cxx_eval_vec_init_1): Correct type.
tree fn;
if (cxx_dialect < cxx0x
- || TYPE_HAS_NONTRIVIAL_DESTRUCTOR (t)
- /* FIXME These constraints seem unnecessary; remove from standard.
- || !TYPE_HAS_TRIVIAL_COPY_CTOR (t)
- || TYPE_HAS_COMPLEX_MOVE_CTOR (t)*/ )
+ || TYPE_HAS_NONTRIVIAL_DESTRUCTOR (t))
CLASSTYPE_LITERAL_P (t) = false;
else if (CLASSTYPE_LITERAL_P (t) && !TYPE_HAS_TRIVIAL_DFLT (t)
+ && CLASSTYPE_NON_AGGREGATE (t)
&& !TYPE_HAS_CONSTEXPR_CTOR (t))
CLASSTYPE_LITERAL_P (t) = false;
}
TREE_TYPE (fn) = build_exception_variant (TREE_TYPE (fn), eh_spec);
if (DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P (implicit_fn))
- /* Hmm...should we do this for out-of-class too? Should it be OK to
- add constexpr later like inline, rather than requiring
- declarations to match? */
- DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P (fn) = true;
+ {
+ /* Hmm...should we do this for out-of-class too? Should it be OK to
+ add constexpr later like inline, rather than requiring
+ declarations to match? */
+ DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P (fn) = true;
+ if (kind == sfk_constructor)
+ TYPE_HAS_CONSTEXPR_CTOR (ctx) = true;
+ }
}
if (!DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P (implicit_fn)
+2011-06-29 Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
+
+ * g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-is_literal.C: Adjust.
+
2011-06-29 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-17.c: Adjust.
struct A {
A(const A&) = default;
+ A(int);
};
NO(A); // no constexpr ctor other than copy