From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id AAF053858C35; Thu,  5 Oct 2023 20:51:08 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AAF053858C35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1696539068;
	bh=Ug9+2OGbdToMbkoz54WH4b6HA1ZSLjyKotlpbSGPinA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=SRX81fuPxieA8ASFlQzGZXFCSOgLc7i+fEj77JGkb6SWef00+Ze95FkboTX0hSPdj
	 zZ94wgkUHoI0p7Rp6M2HiV056QAJ1tpdz2YZwTvVyiHXCqm+dyx1p7DceFM74ENXYj
	 lr9sKvS+wtgqPLwhRcOPxtU5G25fNFZ38yblpDNM=
From: "nicolas.werner at hotmail dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/100135] [modules] ICE when using constants in a module
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2023 20:51:07 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: nicolas.werner at hotmail dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-100135-4-gacGNB6LJz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-100135-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-100135-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100135

--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Werner <nicolas.werner at hotmail dot de> ---
Possibly the gcc behaviour here is correct. There is a clang bug open for it
not rejecting calls to functions with default parameters, when the default
parameter is not exported: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57459

However possibly that should only be an error at the call site instead of w=
hen
compiling the module with that function declaration, when the function
parameter can be legally specified at the call site. For example for foo(in=
t i
=3D unexported_constant) a call to foo(5) could be legal, even if only foo =
but
not unexported_constant is exported? Not sure what the standard says on tha=
t,
it sounds similar to CWG2631.=