From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 48C5A3893641; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 22:11:47 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 48C5A3893641 From: "cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/90254] [8/9/10 Regression] ice on aggregate initialization of unmovable base Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 22:11:46 +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: 8.3.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code, ice-on-valid-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: jason at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 8.5 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 22:11:47 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D90254 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97014e4ada448aa8978b3cd14ed95e0e56f375d9 commit r10-9168-g97014e4ada448aa8978b3cd14ed95e0e56f375d9 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Wed Aug 12 05:45:02 2020 -0400 c++: Copy elision and [[no_unique_address]]. [PR93711] We don't elide a copy from a function returning a class by value into a base because that can overwrite data laid out in the tail padding of the base class; we need to handle [[no_unique_address]] fields the same way, or = we ICE when the middle-end wants to create a temporary object of a TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING type. This means that we can't always express initialization of a field with INIT_EXPR from a TARGET_EXPR the way we usually do, so I needed to change several places that were assuming that was sufficient. This also fixes 90254, the same problem with C++17 aggregate initializa= tion of a base. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: PR c++/90254 PR c++/93711 * cp-tree.h (unsafe_return_slot_p): Declare. * call.c (is_base_field_ref): Rename to unsafe_return_slot_p. (build_over_call): Check unsafe_return_slot_p. (build_special_member_call): Likewise. * init.c (expand_default_init): Likewise. * typeck2.c (split_nonconstant_init_1): Likewise. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR c++/90254 PR c++/93711 * g++.dg/cpp1z/aggr-base10.C: New test. * g++.dg/cpp2a/no_unique_address7.C: New test. * g++.dg/cpp2a/no_unique_address7a.C: New test.=