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 BB8AD3858D3C; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 15:21:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BB8AD3858D3C
From: "jason at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/104620] FAIL: g++.dg/cpp23/consteval-if2.C  -std=gnu++20 
 (test for errors)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 15:21:38 +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: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-104620-4-AzhE0iPG1A@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-104620-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-104620-4@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: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 15:21:38 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104620

--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #7)
> IIUC as long as NON_DEPENDENT_EXPR doesn't appear inside a non-dependent
> consteval call then we'll currently correctly accept/reject it ahead of
> time, e.g.:

Right.  The problem we're hitting is that within a template we're trying to
evaluate the immediate invocation inside build_over_call rather than when we
return to e.g. finish_call_expr and build up the call to actually go into t=
he
template trees: if we fold_non_dependent_expr at that point instead, it sho=
uld
be fine.  The only problem with that is that there are a bunch of places th=
at
need to be changed.=