public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/107624] New: Wrong code with static operator ()
@ 2022-11-10 21:42 jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-10 21:45 ` [Bug c++/107624] [c++23] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-10 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107624
Bug ID: 107624
Summary: Wrong code with static operator ()
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In:
struct S {
static void operator() (int);
static void baz (int);
};
S &foo (int);
void
bar ()
{
foo (0) (0);
foo (1).baz (1);
}
we transform the latter into *foo (1), S::baz (1), but the former into just
S::operator() (0) - the side-effects on the postfix-expression are gone.
Shouldn't we add that somewhere as COMPOUND_EXPR when we select a static
operator() (ditto for static operator[])?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/107624] [c++23] Wrong code with static operator ()
2022-11-10 21:42 [Bug c++/107624] New: Wrong code with static operator () jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-10 21:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-16 13:44 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-10 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107624
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is interesting because clang also does not produce a call for the foo
either for "foo (0) (0);".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/107624] [c++23] Wrong code with static operator ()
2022-11-10 21:42 [Bug c++/107624] New: Wrong code with static operator () jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-10 21:45 ` [Bug c++/107624] [c++23] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-16 13:44 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-16 14:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-28 22:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-16 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107624
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf958f8f168f695d49e29297ef9fb37f6efa5d0f
commit r13-4095-gcf958f8f168f695d49e29297ef9fb37f6efa5d0f
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Nov 16 14:42:54 2022 +0100
c++: Fix up calls to static operator() or operator[] [PR107624]
One thing that doesn't work properly is the same problem as I've filed
yesterday for static operator() - PR107624 - that side-effects of
the postfix-expression on which the call or subscript operator are
applied are thrown away, I assume we have to add them into COMPOUND_EXPR
somewhere after we find out that the we've chosen a static member function
operator.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 06:29:44PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Indeed. The code in build_new_method_call for this case has the comment
>
> /* In an expression of the form `a->f()' where `f' turns
> out to be a static member function, `a' is
> none-the-less evaluated. */
Had to tweak 3 spots for this. Furthermore, found that if in non-pedantic
C++20 compilation static operator[] is accepted, we required that it has 2
arguments, I think it is better to require exactly one because that case
is the only one that will actually work in C++20 and older.
2022-11-16 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR c++/107624
* call.cc (keep_unused_object_arg): New function.
(build_op_call): Use it.
(build_op_subscript): Likewise.
(build_new_op): Similarly for ARRAY_REF.
(build_new_method_call): Use it.
* decl.cc (grok_op_properties): For C++20 and earlier, if
operator[]
is static member function, require exactly one parameter rather
than
exactly two parameters.
* g++.dg/cpp23/static-operator-call4.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp23/subscript10.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp23/subscript11.C: New test.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/107624] [c++23] Wrong code with static operator ()
2022-11-10 21:42 [Bug c++/107624] New: Wrong code with static operator () jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-10 21:45 ` [Bug c++/107624] [c++23] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-16 13:44 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-16 14:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-28 22:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-16 14:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107624
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Should be fixed now.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/107624] [c++23] Wrong code with static operator ()
2022-11-10 21:42 [Bug c++/107624] New: Wrong code with static operator () jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2022-11-16 14:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-28 22:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-28 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107624
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-11-28 22:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-11-10 21:42 [Bug c++/107624] New: Wrong code with static operator () jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-10 21:45 ` [Bug c++/107624] [c++23] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-16 13:44 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-16 14:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-28 22:23 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).