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 763F83858425; Thu, 16 Mar 2023 18:47:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 763F83858425
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1678992477;
	bh=N3Puug29QUehTT/4ls6O9CgAAhCzU4MZNuSCi6R7kY0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=mAn3MtHASu839QTqbop9xzfHa5tfSBJ05LIOSWVwYLnWIu91iyy4qQSdeT/nNLT/R
	 Nmf4v0IAIgtY1XcopDmBdTsa9uYm1GK5P3UUBmXXUtdLMRSyQQjITONr9PuW1/ip4i
	 VHl+pkkw0SBIVLMx4CTzHb6aXrsc80dkFurroy40=
From: "cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/109030] [13 Regression] checking ICE in
 cxx_eval_call_expression with aggregate initialization inside noexcept
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 18:47:57 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-checking, ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109030-4-NTb5BIAYCy@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109030-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109030-4@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=3D109030

--- Comment #5 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:31cdfdef04701e10cffcec4578b2337684f0e4bc

commit r13-6716-g31cdfdef04701e10cffcec4578b2337684f0e4bc
Author: Patrick Palka <ppalka@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu Mar 16 14:47:43 2023 -0400

    c++: maybe_constant_init and unevaluated operands [PR109030]

    This testcase in this PR (already fixed by r13-6526-ge4692319fd5fc7)
    demonstrates that maybe_constant_init can be called on an unevaluated
    operand (e.g. from massage_init_elt) so this entry point should also
    limit constant evaluation in that case, like maybe_constant_value does.

            PR c++/109030

    gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

            * constexpr.cc (maybe_constant_init_1): For an unevaluated
            non-manifestly-constant operand, don't constant evaluate
            and instead call fold_to_constant as in maybe_constant_value.

    gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

            * g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-inst2.C: New test.=