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 727503858D28; Sat, 26 Mar 2022 23:01:51 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 727503858D28
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: Sat, 26 Mar 2022 23:01:51 +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-D0Vmn4ddeV@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: Sat, 26 Mar 2022 23:01:51 -0000

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

--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #10)
> That'd work for finish_call_expr and build_new_method call since they're
> given the original arguments, but other callers e.g. build_new_op never s=
ee
> the original arguments, so we wouldn't be able to do fold_non_dependent_e=
xpr
> from there IIUC.  For build_new_op in particular, we'd have to instead
> fold_non_dependent_expr from _its_ callers, the build_x_* class of
> functions, I think..

Agreed.  Or possibly reorganize them to share the non-dep handling between =
them
better.=