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 AC22A385BF83; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 21:56:27 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AC22A385BF83
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1586901387;
 bh=JHkJ6YkpXhcwkmYc0xv0wvBJqxfcS9hVI6TIOLJKHiw=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=GYFdQE1J5pRTe+f0EK/DhVxNKftvxYaCDgEb/p47S0C/8sKaOouNCpYQ4NZdT6KnF
 zYnM/SrGqbCkVfJ4xGpdBcXTn0DlznpLj2L2rlklOYnxg/hihGmwTb5cQNiKMIIqUk
 lyEgeyx+Li6hZJsYndrGgZSKV0VN73i2t7WWeZYE=
From: "daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/94554] spurious -Waddress warning within "if constexpr"
 function-null compares
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 21:56:27 +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: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-94554-4-aDiKFWI6yj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94554-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94554-4@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: <https://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: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 21:56:27 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94554

--- Comment #3 from Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot =
com> ---
(In reply to Melissa from comment #0)
> Clang errors on this case, so it's possible that my code is invalid: Is it
> legal to compare a function pointer against null in a constant-expression?

The example is ill-formed because the condition of 'if constexpr' is more
restricted than that of normal 'if': It expects "a contextually converted
constant expression of type bool" and [expr.const] p10 lists the allowed
conversions in this case. This list omits the boolean conversions
([conv.bool]).

But the example would become valid when rewritten as follows:

int meow() { return 1; }
void kitty(int);
template <int (*F)()>
void test() {
    if constexpr (bool(F)) {
        kitty(F());
    } else {
        kitty(2);
    }
}
template void test<nullptr>();
template void test<meow>();=