[Bug c++/32400] New: [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at cp/semantics.c:3220

[Bug c++/32400] New: [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at cp/semantics.c:3220

[jojelino at gmail dot com]

svn snapshot from r125847


-- 
           Summary: [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at
                    cp/semantics.c:3220
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: minor
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: jojelino at gmail dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32400

[Bug c++/32400] [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at cp/semantics.c:3220

[jojelino at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #1 from jojelino at gmail dot com  2007-06-19 12:10 -------
Created an attachment (id=13735)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13735&action=view)
preprocessed source


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32400

[Bug c++/32400] [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at cp/semantics.c:3220

[jojelino at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #2 from jojelino at gmail dot com  2007-06-19 18:13 -------
Created an attachment (id=13737)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13737&action=view)
source file that causes ICE

reduced. just three line for ICE


-- 

jojelino at gmail dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #13735|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32400

[Bug c++/32400] [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at cp/semantics.c:3220

[jojelino at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #3 from jojelino at gmail dot com  2007-06-19 18:18 -------
(From update of attachment 13737)
removing static keyword at the top resolves problem.
but is it workaround?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32400

[Bug c++/32400] [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at cp/semantics.c:3220

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32400

[Bug c++/32400] [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at cp/semantics.c:3220

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-07-08 11:29 -------
Related to PR 32596.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BugsThisDependsOn|                            |32596


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32400

[Bug c++/32400] [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at cp/semantics.c:3220

[falk at debian dot org]

------- Comment #5 from falk at debian dot org  2007-08-01 20:15 -------
Actually, two lines suffice:

template<unsigned x> static inline void f() { }
template<>                  inline void f<5>() { }

This also breaks inkscape.


-- 

falk at debian dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32400

[Bug c++/32400] [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at cp/semantics.c:3220

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-08-01 21:29 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> Actually, two lines suffice:

I don't remember if template functions can be static.  I really think they
cannot.
Which is one of the reasons why this bug was not marked as confirmed or have a
keyword assigned to it.

Note PR 32596 is definitely valid code, anonymous namespaces templates.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32400

[Bug c++/32400] [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at cp/semantics.c:3220

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-08-10 00:30 -------
I believe this to be valid code.


-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32400

[Bug c++/32400] [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at cp/semantics.c:3220

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-08-21 15:29 -------
The patch for PR32596 fixes this as well.


-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   |dot org                     |
                URL|                            |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
                   |                            |patches/2007-
                   |                            |08/msg00954.html
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2007-08-21 15:29:13
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32400

[Bug c++/32400] [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at cp/semantics.c:3220

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-08-28 16:08 -------
Subject: Bug 32400

Author: jakub
Date: Tue Aug 28 16:08:02 2007
New Revision: 127863

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=127863
Log:
        PR c++/32596
        PR c++/32400
        * pt.c (check_explicit_specialization): Set DECL_INTERFACE_KNOWN
        and DECL_NOT_REALLY_EXTERN if tmpl_func is not public.

        * g++.dg/ext/visibility/anon5.C: New test.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/visibility/anon5.C
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32400

[Bug c++/32400] [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at cp/semantics.c:3220

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-08-28 16:09 -------
Fixed.


-- 

jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32400

[Bug c++/32400] [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at cp/semantics.c:3220

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-09-25 00:09 -------
Here is what the C++ standard says about linkage:
A template name may have linkage (3.5). A template, a template explicit
specialization (14.7.3), or a class
template partial specialization shall not have C linkage. If the linkage of one
of these is something other
than C or C++, the behavior is implementation defined.
Template definitions shall obey the one definition
rule (3.2).



So this is implementation defined as far as I can tell, and I think this is
really a bad choice to accept this code.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32400

[Bug c++/32400] [4.3 Regression] ICE in expand_or_defer_fn, at cp/semantics.c:3220

[bangerth at dealii dot org]

------- Comment #12 from bangerth at dealii dot org  2007-09-25 04:22 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> Here is what the C++ standard says about linkage:
> A template name may have linkage (3.5). A template, a template explicit
> specialization (14.7.3), or a class
> template partial specialization shall not have C linkage. If the linkage of one
> of these is something other
> than C or C++, the behavior is implementation defined.
> Template definitions shall obey the one definition
> rule (3.2).
> 
> 
> So this is implementation defined as far as I can tell, and I think this is
> really a bad choice to accept this code.

Uh, can you justify your opinion? Neither can I see why this would be bad
style nor can I see why you would think that anything in the code in
comment #5 would be implementation defined (nothing here has linkage other
than C or C++ that would have been listed in the paragraph you cite).

W.


-- 

bangerth at dealii dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bangerth at dealii dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32400