)]}'
{
  "commit": "9b0341a7a6a38912e667982003bcbfebdfb86335",
  "tree": "d88cd3cebebd1100c046627321f442fdd227e627",
  "parents": [
    "038a334a1f5d28163393c15c842b4db729028a31"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "Patrick Palka",
    "email": "ppalka@redhat.com",
    "time": "Fri Aug 14 15:53:10 2026 -0400"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "Patrick Palka",
    "email": "ppalka@redhat.com",
    "time": "Fri Aug 14 15:53:10 2026 -0400"
  },
  "message": "c++: testsuite: Add some opt/is_constant_evaluated3.C variants\n\nr13-6422 added opt/is_constant_evaluated3.C to verify that we constant\nfold copy-init such as a1.  (Later, r14-6506 enabled constant folding of\nthe a2-a5 inits.)  r13-6422 turns out to trigger a latent bug and causes\nPR c++/126483, premature folding of is_constant_evaluated in copy-init\ninside a lambda scope.\n\nThis patch adds a couple extra variants of this test, one where the\ncontaining function is constexpr (3a) and one where it\u0027s a lambda (3b).\n\nThe new 3a.C demonstrates however that we still don\u0027t constant fold a1\u0027s\ncopy-init when inside a constexpr function scope.  3b.C demonstrates that\nwe do fold it when inside a (maybe-constexpr) lambda scope.\n\ngcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:\n\n\t* g++.dg/opt/is_constant_evaluated3a.C: New test.\n\t* g++.dg/opt/is_constant_evaluated3b.C: New test.\n\nReviewed-by: Jason Merrill \u003cjason@redhat.com\u003e\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "add",
      "old_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
      "old_mode": 0,
      "old_path": "/dev/null",
      "new_id": "4ec3ecdf7b5dd9cd10b0851147ecf778bd7be758",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/is_constant_evaluated3a.C"
    },
    {
      "type": "add",
      "old_id": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
      "old_mode": 0,
      "old_path": "/dev/null",
      "new_id": "ff708e23832be12a7438a10c8c04b4b62a0107f4",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/is_constant_evaluated3b.C"
    }
  ]
}