From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-487407-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 112871 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2018 01:28:44 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 112853 invoked by uid 89); 12 Oct 2018 01:28:43 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-26.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1082
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 01:28:42 +0000
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14])	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))	(No client certificate requested)	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E5733082E71	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 01:28:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-120-116.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.116])	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0B9A89583;	Fri, 12 Oct 2018 01:28:40 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 01:42:00 -0000
From: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
To: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Subject: C++ PATCH to add test to cover case RANGE_FOR_STMT
Message-ID: <20181012012838.GL19003@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-SW-Source: 2018-10/txt/msg00711.txt.bz2

Recently it came up that no test in the testsuite triggers the RANGE_FOR_STMT
case in potential_constant_expression_1.  I came up with this valid test that
tickles that codepath.

I can't use ({ }) instead of a lambda because the constexpr machinery doesn't
handle statement expressions; see default: in cxx_eval_constant_expression.

Tested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?

2018-10-11  Marek Polacek  <polacek@redhat.com>

	* g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-lambda22.C: New test,

diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-lambda22.C gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-lambda22.C
index e69de29bb2d..8bb473431a5 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-lambda22.C
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-lambda22.C
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+// { dg-do compile }
+// { dg-options -std=c++17 }
+
+#define SA(X) static_assert((X),#X)
+
+template<typename>
+constexpr int
+foo ()
+{
+  constexpr int a[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
+  int i = 0;
+  auto j = [&] {
+    for (auto x : a)
+      i++;
+    return i;
+  }();
+  return j;
+}
+
+SA (foo<int>() == 5);