public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/97523] New: [11 Regression] bogus "would use explicit constructor" error for new[]()
@ 2020-10-21 19:05 mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-21 19:05 ` [Bug c++/97523] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-10-21 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97523
Bug ID: 97523
Summary: [11 Regression] bogus "would use explicit constructor"
error for new[]()
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Since my r11-3092 the following is rejected with -std=c++20:
template <typename> struct A;
template <typename T> struct A<T[]> { typedef T type; };
template <typename T> using U = typename A<T>::type;
struct B {
template <typename T> B(T);
};
long int sz;
template <typename T> void foo() { new U<T>[sz](); }
struct D {
explicit D();
};
struct C {
B b;
C() : b(foo<D[]>) {}
};
r.cc: In instantiation of ‘void foo() [with T = D []]’:
r.cc:19:9: required from here
r.cc:11:36: error: converting to ‘U<D []>’ {aka ‘D’} from initializer list
would use explicit constructor ‘D::D()’
11 | template <typename T> void foo() { new U<T>[sz](); }
|
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/97523] [11 Regression] bogus "would use explicit constructor" error for new[]()
2020-10-21 19:05 [Bug c++/97523] New: [11 Regression] bogus "would use explicit constructor" error for new[]() mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-10-21 19:05 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-18 16:47 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-10-21 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97523
Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed| |2020-10-21
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords| |rejects-valid
Priority|P3 |P1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/97523] [11 Regression] bogus "would use explicit constructor" error for new[]()
2020-10-21 19:05 [Bug c++/97523] New: [11 Regression] bogus "would use explicit constructor" error for new[]() mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-21 19:05 ` [Bug c++/97523] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-18 16:47 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-19 19:00 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-19 19:02 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-18 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97523
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Better test:
// PR c++/97523
// { dg-do compile }
struct T {
explicit T();
T(int);
};
void
fn (int n)
{
new T[1]();
new T[2]();
new T[3]();
new T[n]();
#if __cpp_aggregate_paren_init
new T[]();
new T[2](1, 2);
new T[3](1, 2);
#endif
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/97523] [11 Regression] bogus "would use explicit constructor" error for new[]()
2020-10-21 19:05 [Bug c++/97523] New: [11 Regression] bogus "would use explicit constructor" error for new[]() mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-21 19:05 ` [Bug c++/97523] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-18 16:47 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-19 19:00 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-19 19:02 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-19 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97523
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek <mpolacek@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ae48b74ca0c0ba33d396a6ebad7a1c0a6dadb1f7
commit r11-5179-gae48b74ca0c0ba33d396a6ebad7a1c0a6dadb1f7
Author: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Nov 18 19:07:07 2020 -0500
c++: Fix array new with value-initialization [PR97523]
Since my r11-3092 the following is rejected with -std=c++20:
struct T { explicit T(); };
void fn(int n) {
new T[1]();
}
with "would use explicit constructor 'T::T()'". It is because since
that change we go into the P1009 block in build_new (array_p is false,
but nelts is non-null and we're in C++20). Since we only have (), we
build a {} and continue to build_new_1, which then calls build_vec_init
and then we error because the {} isn't CONSTRUCTOR_IS_DIRECT_INIT.
For (), which is value-initializing, we want to do what we were doing
before: pass empty init and let build_value_init take care of it.
For various reasons I wanted to dig a little bit deeper into this,
and as a result, I'm adding a test for [expr.new]/24 (and checked that
out current behavior matches clang++).
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/97523
* init.c (build_new): When value-initializing an array new,
leave the INIT as an empty vector.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR c++/97523
* g++.dg/expr/anew5.C: New test.
* g++.dg/expr/anew6.C: New test.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/97523] [11 Regression] bogus "would use explicit constructor" error for new[]()
2020-10-21 19:05 [Bug c++/97523] New: [11 Regression] bogus "would use explicit constructor" error for new[]() mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-11-19 19:00 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-19 19:02 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-19 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97523
Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-11-19 19:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-10-21 19:05 [Bug c++/97523] New: [11 Regression] bogus "would use explicit constructor" error for new[]() mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-21 19:05 ` [Bug c++/97523] " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-18 16:47 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-19 19:00 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-19 19:02 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).