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 B33B83852764; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 16:48:13 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B33B83852764
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1702486093;
	bh=xsNJeySHHMUDHvpRcFl4/xpjuQ/0m1pordtrzs23wrc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=qNF4phTfcz5V4W5U2sLZ0jCTTgezFy9f/cw4FlmthPtV0VkX8H4V4olhr2LeEuIYx
	 Q0JOrb8TagNuyRE4YMK+NgZsxyyDijMMdvKpArHaR+qe1yyei8c5eh8q2w4BPZWQHf
	 4pTAS2MtflgEo7uokMc66ErHM3/lZ7J6l8k2Cnao=
From: "cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/108243] [11/12 Regression] Missed optimization for static
 const std::string_view(const char*)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 16:48:13 +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: 11.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108243-4-Lg0nJ7elk1@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108243-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108243-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108243

--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill <jason@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:958940eb3511e341e57606f5a2f5399bc89533cb

commit r14-6506-g958940eb3511e341e57606f5a2f5399bc89533cb
Author: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue Dec 12 22:53:10 2023 -0500

    c++: constant direct-initialization [PR108243]

    When testing the proposed patch for PR71093 I noticed that it changed t=
he
    diagnostic for consteval-prop6.C.  I then noticed that the diagnostic
wasn't
    very helpful either way; it was complaining about modification of the '=
x'
    variable, but it's not a problem to initialize a local variable with a
    consteval constructor as long as the value is actually constant, we wan=
t to
    know why the value isn't constant.  And then it turned out that this al=
so
    fixed a missed-optimization bug in the testsuite.

            PR c++/108243

    gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

            * constexpr.cc (cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr): Turn
            a constructor CALL_EXPR into a TARGET_EXPR.

    gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

            * g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval-prop6.C: Adjust diagnostic.
            * g++.dg/opt/is_constant_evaluated3.C: Remove xfails.=