From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-477419-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26286 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2015 13:56:54 -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
Received: (qmail 26241 invoked by uid 48); 16 Feb 2015 13:56:50 -0000
From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/65075] [5 Regression] constexpr regression
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 13:56:00 -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: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-65075-4-gHUcXe6LN3@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65075-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65075-4@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: 2015-02/txt/msg01752.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65075

--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> ---
Hi Jakub. Something like the below passes testing and works for the testcase:

Index: constexpr.c
===================================================================
--- constexpr.c    (revision 220731)
+++ constexpr.c    (working copy)
@@ -415,8 +415,8 @@ check_constexpr_bind_expr_vars (tree t)
   gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (t) == BIND_EXPR);

   for (tree var = BIND_EXPR_VARS (t); var; var = DECL_CHAIN (var))
-    if (TREE_CODE (var) == TYPE_DECL
-    && DECL_IMPLICIT_TYPEDEF_P (var))
+    if (DECL_IMPLICIT_TYPEDEF_P (var)
+    && !LAMBDA_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (var)))
       return false;
   return true;
 }

Note that I will be traveling for a week or so, thus I'm not be able to fully
handle the issue. If we rather resolve the regression immediately, please feel
free to pick up the above / double check if it makes sense to Jason.