public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "janschultke at googlemail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/113274] New: Memoization in template parameters is overly aggressive; false memoization for const pointers
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2024 14:50:35 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-113274-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113274

            Bug ID: 113274
           Summary: Memoization in template parameters is overly
                    aggressive; false memoization for const pointers
           Product: gcc
           Version: 14.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: janschultke at googlemail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

## Minimal Reproducible Example (https://godbolt.org/z/Y7Kr9o546)

template <auto>
struct A {
    static constexpr bool value = false;
};

template <auto p>
  requires __is_same(decltype(p), int*)
struct A<p> {
    static constexpr bool value = false;
};

int x = 0;
//static_assert( A<&x>::value );
static_assert( A<const_cast<const int*>(&x)>::value == false );

## Explanation

Uncommenting the first static_assert causes compilation failure of the second
static_assert.
This should definitely not happen, as the following instantiations should be
distinct:

- A<(int*) &x>
- A<(const int*) &x>

GCC aggressively memoizes the first instantiation in A<&x>, which results in
the subsequent A<(const int*)&x>::value being identical, even though it should
not be.

             reply	other threads:[~2024-01-08 14:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-01-08 14:50 janschultke at googlemail dot com [this message]
2024-01-08 15:01 ` [Bug c++/113274] " janschultke at googlemail dot com
2024-01-08 15:09 ` janschultke at googlemail dot com
2024-01-08 15:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-113274-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).