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 583093943545; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:02:00 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 583093943545
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1584054120;
 bh=mWndlbG2UJZ6U/1iz3KjA08xxwiTm83KaYSKdKsTqGE=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=pK1PAKuiBCsE2/h7leemzDRCqcIdpwBvaAKvyhXDci9129jF1cG41v1N/RNPpA8E0
 sIul+01RX2H0U6FGzukAORIcnj9jXO8tW+uE/GQwETTr4lNjhiN4u6i3cKsyQGcMsV
 3zk51oz6GYEA6HGeYyphif0VS6DqCjlWTAnqLSc4=
From: "ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/92010] [8/9/10 Regression] gcc internal error since 8x on
 warning write-strings
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:02:00 +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: 9.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 8.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-92010-4-vgCW5ZOJLe@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-92010-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-92010-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:02:00 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D92010

--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #5)
> The ICE seems to be revealing a latent issue:  In the following example
> (which GCC accepts), according to the static_assert labelled (1), the type
> of t is const int*, but according to the static_assert labelled (2), the
> type of t is int *const.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> template <typename T>
> void foo(const T t)
> {
>   static_assert(__is_same(decltype(t), const int*));  // (1)
> }
>=20
> static_assert(__is_same(decltype(foo<int[]>), void(int *)));  // (2)
>=20
> int
> main()
> {
>   foo<int[]>(nullptr);
> }

So the question becomes, what should the type of t be here?  According to
https://eel.is/c++draft/temp#deduct-3:

"A top-level qualifier in a function parameter declaration does not affect =
the
function type but still affects the type of the function parameter variable
within the function."

The above suggests that the type of foo<int[]> should be the same regardles=
s of
where the parameter t is const-qualified.  Going by this then, it appears t=
hat
the static_assert (2) is right and (1) is wrong.  Can anyone confirm?

(On the other hand, Clang thinks (1) is right and (2) is wrong.)=