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 A70123838028; Tue,  7 Sep 2021 17:42:47 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A70123838028
From: "cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/100495] constexpr virtual destructor incorrectly reports
 memory leak
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 17:42:47 +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: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-100495-4-XGxvtdFZiK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-100495-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-100495-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2021 17:42:47 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100495

--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
<jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f300873f6bf8456ebdbd40d0211aefe57f95cb5

commit r11-8968-g9f300873f6bf8456ebdbd40d0211aefe57f95cb5
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue Sep 7 19:33:28 2021 +0200

    c++: Fix up constexpr evaluation of deleting dtors [PR100495]

    We do not save bodies of constexpr clones and instead evaluate the bodi=
es
    of the constexpr functions they were cloned from.
    I believe that is just fine for constructors because complete vs. base
    ctors differ only in classes that have virtual bases and such construct=
ors
    aren't constexpr, similarly complete/base destructors.
    But as the testcase below shows, for deleting destructors it is not fin=
e,
    deleting dtors while marked as clones in fact are just artificial funct=
ions
    with synthetized body which calls the user destructor and deallocation.

    So, either we'd need to evaluate the destructor and afterwards syntheti=
ze
    and evaluate the deallocation, or we can just save and use the deleting
    dtors bodies.  The latter seems much easier to me.

    2021-09-07  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

            PR c++/100495
            * constexpr.c (maybe_save_constexpr_fundef): Save body even for
            constexpr deleting dtors.
            (cxx_eval_call_expression): Don't use DECL_CLONED_FUNCTION for
            deleting dtors.

            * g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-new21.C: New test.

    (cherry picked from commit 81f9718139cb1cc164ada411ada8cca9f32b8be8)=