[Bug c++/60417] New: [4.9 regression] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

[Bug c++/60417] New: [4.9 regression] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417

            Bug ID: 60417
           Summary: [4.9 regression] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03
                    aggregate initialization
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.9.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: rejects-valid
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
        Depends on: 54835

This testcase is valid C++98, but we've started to reject it since the patch
for 54835.

struct A { explicit A(int = 0); };
struct B { A a; };

int main()
{
  B b = {};
}

[Bug c++/60417] [4.9 regression] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417

Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-03-04
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.9.0
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

[Bug c++/60417] [4.9 regression] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |redi at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 60416 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/60417] [4.9 regression] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417

--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Mar  4 22:16:12 2014
New Revision: 208333

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208333&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR c++/60417
    * typeck2.c (process_init_constructor_record): Set
    CONSTRUCTOR_IS_DIRECT_INIT on {} for omitted initializers.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/explicit1.C
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cp/typeck2.c

[Bug c++/60417] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
            Summary|[4.9 regression] [DR 1518]  |[DR 1518] Bogus error on
                   |Bogus error on C++03        |C++03 aggregate
                   |aggregate initialization    |initialization

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
No longer a regression.  Don't know if you don't want to keep this open until
you discuss this in the language committee.

[Bug c++/60417] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

[daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417

--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> ---
I have submitted a request to the core group for clarification, but personally
I believe that the intention is clearly to never implicitly-declare an explicit
default constructor, just as we have the same rule for copy/move consttructors.
>From gcc-bugs-return-445440-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Mar 05 07:57:49 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-445440-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25453 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2014 07:57:48 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25382 invoked by uid 48); 5 Mar 2014 07:57:43 -0000
From: "aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug debug/60381] [4.9 Regression] ICE: in vt_expand_var_loc_chain, at var-tracking.c:8245
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:57:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: debug
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on component assigned_to everconfirmed
Message-ID: <bug-60381-4-6ZWzxod2FZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-60381-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-60381-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-03/txt/msg00309.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1112

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id`381

Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-03-05
          Component|middle-end                  |debug
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Mine.  Wow, I didn't see that one coming.  I thought we only have links from
preserved values to other preserved values, but this proves this is not the
case.  A reversal of 208220 will certainly fix that, but I'm assessing the
impact of that on the pr59992 fix, and looking into combining the two table
cleanups at cselib_reset_table into a single pass.  I have a hunch there's some
remaining complexity from back when we actually visited each insn twice and had
to roll back cselib table changes.

[Bug c++/60417] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417

--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I think Daniel's question is tangential because the testcase can be modified
like so:

  B b{};

Or like so:

struct A { explicit A(int = 0); };
struct B { int i; A a; };

int main()
{
  B b = { 1 };
}

Now whether B has an explicit default ctor is irrelevant. This bug is about
whether the missing initializer-clause for b.a is equivalent to {} or A{}, and
as I said in PR 60416, [dcl.init.aggr]/7 has an example indicating that the
answer is A{}, so I think the testcase is clearly valid, whatever the
resolution of DR 1518 or Daniel's question.

[Bug c++/60417] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.9.0                       |---

[Bug c++/60417] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417

--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Aug  2 00:52:09 2014
New Revision: 213511

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213511&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR c++/60417
    * init.c (build_vec_init): Set CONSTRUCTOR_IS_DIRECT_INIT on
    init-list for trailing elements.
    * typeck2.c (process_init_constructor_array): Likewise.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/explicit2.C
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cp/init.c
    trunk/gcc/cp/typeck2.c

[Bug c++/60417] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417

--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Aug  7 01:44:11 2014
New Revision: 213689

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213689&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR c++/60417
    * init.c (build_vec_init): Reorganize earlier change a bit.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cp/init.c

[Bug c++/60417] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417

--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed Aug 20 01:16:31 2014
New Revision: 214205

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214205&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR c++/60417
    * init.c (build_vec_init): Set CONSTRUCTOR_IS_DIRECT_INIT on
    init-list for trailing elements.
    * typeck2.c (process_init_constructor_array): Likewise.

Added:
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/explicit2.C
Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/init.c
    branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/cp/typeck2.c

[Bug c++/60417] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417
Bug 60417 depends on bug 54835, which changed state.

Bug 54835 Summary: [C++11][DR 1518] Explicit default constructors not respected during copy-list-initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |SUSPENDED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |---

[Bug c++/60417] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417

--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Oct 24 02:58:10 2015
New Revision: 229283

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229283&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
        DR 1518
        DR 1630
        PR c++/54835
        PR c++/60417
        * call.c (convert_like_real): Value-initialization can't use
        explicit constructors in C++11 and up.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/explicit10.C
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cp/call.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist40.C
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/explicit1.C
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/explicit2.C

[Bug c++/60417] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417

--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Following discussions of DR1518/1630 in Kona, the testcase is now ill-formed in
C++11 and up.