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 DB80E3858D37; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 05:53:49 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DB80E3858D37
From: "guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/105297] [12 Regression] new modules 'xtreme' test cases 
 FAILs
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 05:53:49 +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: testsuite-fail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
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-105297-4-lTeblOe770@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105297-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105297-4@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: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 05:53:50 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105297

--- Comment #15 from Jiu Fu Guo <guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #13)
> (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #10)
> > >=20
> > > Interestingly that doesn't seem to make a difference.  What seems to =
matter
> > > is whether the constexpr function modifies the CONSTRUCTOR that it re=
turns:
> > >=20
> > > constexpr auto foo() {
> > >   struct S { int d; } t =3D {};
> > >   t.d =3D 0; // doesn't ICE if this line is commented out
> > >   return t;
> > > }
> > >=20
> > > template<int>
> > > int bar() {
> > >   constexpr auto t =3D foo();
> > >   return 0;
> > > }
> >=20
> > Right, it is weird. Some PRs on Xtreme-* failure (including ICE) were a=
lso
> > reported before. e.g. PR100052, PR101853, PR99910.  As commented in tho=
se
> > PRs, these may be random failures, and changes in headers that could ex=
pose
> > the ICE.
> > I'm also wondering if this may be an issue hidden inside somewhere (GC?=
).
>=20
> In this case I suspect it's just a bug in the modules code, I opened
> PR105322 to track it.

Oh, thanks!  This failure seems only about the module code on 'struct member
cross functions'.=