public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/108219] New: requirement fails on a valid expression
@ 2022-12-24 22:04 vanyacpp at gmail dot com
2022-12-24 23:33 ` [Bug c++/108219] [12/13 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 more replies)
0 siblings, 9 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: vanyacpp at gmail dot com @ 2022-12-24 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108219
Bug ID: 108219
Summary: requirement fails on a valid expression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vanyacpp at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
This code compiles OK on clang, MSVC and GCC prior to 12:
template <typename T>
concept test = requires
{
new T[1]{{ 42 }};
};
struct foobar
{
foobar(int);
};
int main()
{
static_assert(test<foobar>);
new foobar[1]{{ 42 }};
}
But on GCC 12 it produces an error:
<source>:14:19: error: static assertion failed
14 | static_assert(test<foobar>);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
<source>:14:19: note: constraints not satisfied
<source>:2:9: required by the constraints of 'template<class T> concept test'
<source>:2:16: in requirements [with T = foobar]
<source>:4:5: note: the required expression 'new T(1)' is invalid, because
4 | new T[1]{{ 42 }};
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<source>:4:5: error: could not convert '<brace-enclosed initializer list>()'
from '<brace-enclosed initializer list>' to 'foobar'
4 | new T[1]{{ 42 }};
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| <brace-enclosed initializer list>
I believe the error is incorrect and that this is a regression in GCC 12.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/108219] [12/13 Regression] requirement fails on a valid expression
2022-12-24 22:04 [Bug c++/108219] New: requirement fails on a valid expression vanyacpp at gmail dot com
@ 2022-12-24 23:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-27 12:35 ` [Bug c++/108219] [12/13 Regression] requirement fails on a valid expression since r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-12-24 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108219
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to work| |11.3.0
Last reconfirmed| |2022-12-24
Target Milestone|--- |12.3
Keywords| |needs-bisection,
| |rejects-valid
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|requirement fails on a |[12/13 Regression]
|valid expression |requirement fails on a
| |valid expression
Known to fail| |12.1.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/108219] [12/13 Regression] requirement fails on a valid expression since r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569
2022-12-24 22:04 [Bug c++/108219] New: requirement fails on a valid expression vanyacpp at gmail dot com
2022-12-24 23:33 ` [Bug c++/108219] [12/13 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-12-27 12:35 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-09 13:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-12-27 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108219
Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Summary|[12/13 Regression] |[12/13 Regression]
|requirement fails on a |requirement fails on a
|valid expression |valid expression since
| |r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Started with r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/108219] [12/13 Regression] requirement fails on a valid expression since r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569
2022-12-24 22:04 [Bug c++/108219] New: requirement fails on a valid expression vanyacpp at gmail dot com
2022-12-24 23:33 ` [Bug c++/108219] [12/13 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-27 12:35 ` [Bug c++/108219] [12/13 Regression] requirement fails on a valid expression since r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-01-09 13:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-22 17:19 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-01-09 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108219
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/108219] [12/13 Regression] requirement fails on a valid expression since r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569
2022-12-24 22:04 [Bug c++/108219] New: requirement fails on a valid expression vanyacpp at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2023-01-09 13:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-02-22 17:19 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-01 19:09 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-02-22 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108219
Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/108219] [12/13 Regression] requirement fails on a valid expression since r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569
2022-12-24 22:04 [Bug c++/108219] New: requirement fails on a valid expression vanyacpp at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-22 17:19 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-03-01 19:09 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-01 19:11 ` [Bug c++/108219] [12 " ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-03-01 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108219
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka <ppalka@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:096f034a8f5df41f610e62c1592fb90a3f551cd5
commit r13-6395-g096f034a8f5df41f610e62c1592fb90a3f551cd5
Author: Patrick Palka <ppalka@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Mar 1 14:09:37 2023 -0500
c++: unevaluated array new-expr size constantness [PR108219]
Here we're mishandling the unevaluated array new-expressions due to a
supposed non-constant array size ever since r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569
made us no longer perform constant evaluation of non-manifestly-constant
expressions within unevaluated contexts. This shouldn't make a difference
here since the array sizes are constant literals, except they're expressed
as NON_LVALUE_EXPR location wrappers around INTEGER_CST, wrappers which
used to get stripped as part of constant evaluation and now no longer do.
Moreover it means build_vec_init can't constant fold the MINUS_EXPR
'maxindex' passed from build_new_1 when in an unevaluated context (since
it tries reducing it via maybe_constant_value called with mce_unknown).
This patch fixes these issues by making maybe_constant_value (and
fold_non_dependent_expr) try folding an unevaluated non-manifestly-constant
operand via fold(), as long as it simplifies to a simple constant, rather
than doing no simplification at all. This covers e.g. simple arithmetic
and casts including stripping of location wrappers around INTEGER_CST.
In passing, this patch also fixes maybe_constant_value to avoid constant
evaluating an unevaluated operand when called with mce_false, by adjusting
the early exit test appropriately.
Co-authored-by: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
PR c++/108219
PR c++/108218
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.cc (fold_to_constant): Define.
(maybe_constant_value): Move up early exit test for unevaluated
operands. Try reducing an unevaluated operand to a constant via
fold_to_constant.
(fold_non_dependent_expr_template): Add early exit test for
CONSTANT_CLASS_P nodes. Try reducing an unevaluated operand
to a constant via fold_to_constant.
* cp-tree.h (fold_to_constant): Declare.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/new6.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp2a/concepts-new1.C: New test.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/108219] [12 Regression] requirement fails on a valid expression since r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569
2022-12-24 22:04 [Bug c++/108219] New: requirement fails on a valid expression vanyacpp at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2023-03-01 19:09 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-03-01 19:11 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-03 9:35 ` vanyacpp at gmail dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-03-01 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108219
Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to work| |13.0
Summary|[12/13 Regression] |[12 Regression] requirement
|requirement fails on a |fails on a valid expression
|valid expression since |since
|r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569 |r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569
--- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for GCC 13 so far
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/108219] [12 Regression] requirement fails on a valid expression since r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569
2022-12-24 22:04 [Bug c++/108219] New: requirement fails on a valid expression vanyacpp at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2023-03-01 19:11 ` [Bug c++/108219] [12 " ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-03-03 9:35 ` vanyacpp at gmail dot com
2023-04-28 22:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-28 22:16 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: vanyacpp at gmail dot com @ 2023-03-03 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108219
--- Comment #5 from Ivan Sorokin <vanyacpp at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> Fixed for GCC 13 so far
Thank you very much!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/108219] [12 Regression] requirement fails on a valid expression since r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569
2022-12-24 22:04 [Bug c++/108219] New: requirement fails on a valid expression vanyacpp at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2023-03-03 9:35 ` vanyacpp at gmail dot com
@ 2023-04-28 22:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-28 22:16 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-04-28 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108219
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka
<ppalka@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:73e86b6766cc92aa8c18cc987bf95929c4ea0672
commit r12-9492-g73e86b6766cc92aa8c18cc987bf95929c4ea0672
Author: Patrick Palka <ppalka@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Mar 1 14:09:37 2023 -0500
c++: unevaluated array new-expr size constantness [PR108219]
Here we're mishandling the unevaluated array new-expressions due to a
supposed non-constant array size ever since r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569
made us no longer perform constant evaluation of non-manifestly-constant
expressions within unevaluated contexts. This shouldn't make a difference
here since the array sizes are constant literals, except they're expressed
as NON_LVALUE_EXPR location wrappers around INTEGER_CST, wrappers which
used to get stripped as part of constant evaluation and now no longer do.
Moreover it means build_vec_init can't constant fold the MINUS_EXPR
'maxindex' passed from build_new_1 when in an unevaluated context (since
it tries reducing it via maybe_constant_value called with mce_unknown).
This patch fixes these issues by making maybe_constant_value (and
fold_non_dependent_expr) try folding an unevaluated non-manifestly-constant
operand via fold(), as long as it simplifies to a simple constant, rather
than doing no simplification at all. This covers e.g. simple arithmetic
and casts including stripping of location wrappers around INTEGER_CST.
In passing, this patch also fixes maybe_constant_value to avoid constant
evaluating an unevaluated operand when called with mce_false, by adjusting
the early exit test appropriately.
Co-authored-by: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
PR c++/108219
PR c++/108218
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.cc (fold_to_constant): Define.
(maybe_constant_value): Move up early exit test for unevaluated
operands. Try reducing an unevaluated operand to a constant via
fold_to_constant.
(fold_non_dependent_expr_template): Add early exit test for
CONSTANT_CLASS_P nodes. Try reducing an unevaluated operand
to a constant via fold_to_constant.
* cp-tree.h (fold_to_constant): Declare.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/new6.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp2a/concepts-new1.C: New test.
(cherry picked from commit 096f034a8f5df41f610e62c1592fb90a3f551cd5)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/108219] [12 Regression] requirement fails on a valid expression since r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569
2022-12-24 22:04 [Bug c++/108219] New: requirement fails on a valid expression vanyacpp at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2023-04-28 22:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-04-28 22:16 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-04-28 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108219
Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for GCC 12.3+, thanks for the bug report.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-04-28 22:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-12-24 22:04 [Bug c++/108219] New: requirement fails on a valid expression vanyacpp at gmail dot com
2022-12-24 23:33 ` [Bug c++/108219] [12/13 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-27 12:35 ` [Bug c++/108219] [12/13 Regression] requirement fails on a valid expression since r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-09 13:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-22 17:19 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-01 19:09 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-01 19:11 ` [Bug c++/108219] [12 " ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-03 9:35 ` vanyacpp at gmail dot com
2023-04-28 22:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-28 22:16 ` ppalka 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).