* [PATCH] c++: noexcept and copy elision [PR109030]
@ 2023-03-06 23:59 Marek Polacek
2023-03-07 14:55 ` Jason Merrill
2023-03-09 19:32 ` Patrick Palka
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Marek Polacek @ 2023-03-06 23:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GCC Patches, Jason Merrill
When processing a noexcept, constructors aren't elided: build_over_call
has
/* It's unsafe to elide the constructor when handling
a noexcept-expression, it may evaluate to the wrong
value (c++/53025). */
&& (force_elide || cp_noexcept_operand == 0))
so the assert I added recently needs to be relaxed a little bit.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
PR c++/109030
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.cc (cxx_eval_call_expression): Relax assert.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 6 +++++-
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C | 9 +++++++++
2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
index 364695b762c..5384d0e8e46 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
@@ -2869,7 +2869,11 @@ cxx_eval_call_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree t,
/* We used to shortcut trivial constructor/op= here, but nowadays
we can only get a trivial function here with -fno-elide-constructors. */
- gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun) || !flag_elide_constructors);
+ gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun)
+ || !flag_elide_constructors
+ /* We don't elide constructors when processing
+ a noexcept-expression. */
+ || cp_noexcept_operand);
bool non_constant_args = false;
new_call.bindings
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..16db8eb79ee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+// PR c++/109030
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct foo { };
+
+struct __as_receiver {
+ foo empty_env;
+};
+void sched(foo __fun) noexcept(noexcept(__as_receiver{__fun})) { }
base-commit: dfb14cdd796ad9df6b5f2def047ef36b29385902
--
2.39.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: noexcept and copy elision [PR109030]
2023-03-06 23:59 [PATCH] c++: noexcept and copy elision [PR109030] Marek Polacek
@ 2023-03-07 14:55 ` Jason Merrill
2023-03-09 19:32 ` Patrick Palka
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2023-03-07 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marek Polacek, GCC Patches
On 3/6/23 18:59, Marek Polacek wrote:
> When processing a noexcept, constructors aren't elided: build_over_call
> has
> /* It's unsafe to elide the constructor when handling
> a noexcept-expression, it may evaluate to the wrong
> value (c++/53025). */
> && (force_elide || cp_noexcept_operand == 0))
> so the assert I added recently needs to be relaxed a little bit.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
OK.
> PR c++/109030
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * constexpr.cc (cxx_eval_call_expression): Relax assert.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C: New test.
> ---
> gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 6 +++++-
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C | 9 +++++++++
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> index 364695b762c..5384d0e8e46 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> @@ -2869,7 +2869,11 @@ cxx_eval_call_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree t,
>
> /* We used to shortcut trivial constructor/op= here, but nowadays
> we can only get a trivial function here with -fno-elide-constructors. */
> - gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun) || !flag_elide_constructors);
> + gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun)
> + || !flag_elide_constructors
> + /* We don't elide constructors when processing
> + a noexcept-expression. */
> + || cp_noexcept_operand);
>
> bool non_constant_args = false;
> new_call.bindings
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..16db8eb79ee
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> +// PR c++/109030
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> +
> +struct foo { };
> +
> +struct __as_receiver {
> + foo empty_env;
> +};
> +void sched(foo __fun) noexcept(noexcept(__as_receiver{__fun})) { }
>
> base-commit: dfb14cdd796ad9df6b5f2def047ef36b29385902
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: noexcept and copy elision [PR109030]
2023-03-06 23:59 [PATCH] c++: noexcept and copy elision [PR109030] Marek Polacek
2023-03-07 14:55 ` Jason Merrill
@ 2023-03-09 19:32 ` Patrick Palka
2023-03-09 23:12 ` Jason Merrill
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Palka @ 2023-03-09 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marek Polacek; +Cc: GCC Patches, Jason Merrill
On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> When processing a noexcept, constructors aren't elided: build_over_call
> has
> /* It's unsafe to elide the constructor when handling
> a noexcept-expression, it may evaluate to the wrong
> value (c++/53025). */
> && (force_elide || cp_noexcept_operand == 0))
> so the assert I added recently needs to be relaxed a little bit.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>
> PR c++/109030
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * constexpr.cc (cxx_eval_call_expression): Relax assert.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C: New test.
> ---
> gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 6 +++++-
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C | 9 +++++++++
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> index 364695b762c..5384d0e8e46 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> @@ -2869,7 +2869,11 @@ cxx_eval_call_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree t,
>
> /* We used to shortcut trivial constructor/op= here, but nowadays
> we can only get a trivial function here with -fno-elide-constructors. */
> - gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun) || !flag_elide_constructors);
> + gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun)
> + || !flag_elide_constructors
> + /* We don't elide constructors when processing
> + a noexcept-expression. */
> + || cp_noexcept_operand);
It seems weird that we're performing constant evaluation within an
unevaluated operand. Would it make sense to also fix this a second way
by avoiding constant evaluation from maybe_constant_init when
cp_unevaluated_operand && !manifestly_const_eval, like in maybe_constant_value?
IIUC since we could still have an evaluated subexpression withis
noexcept, the two fixes would be complementary.
>
> bool non_constant_args = false;
> new_call.bindings
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..16db8eb79ee
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> +// PR c++/109030
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> +
> +struct foo { };
> +
> +struct __as_receiver {
> + foo empty_env;
> +};
> +void sched(foo __fun) noexcept(noexcept(__as_receiver{__fun})) { }
>
> base-commit: dfb14cdd796ad9df6b5f2def047ef36b29385902
> --
> 2.39.2
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: noexcept and copy elision [PR109030]
2023-03-09 19:32 ` Patrick Palka
@ 2023-03-09 23:12 ` Jason Merrill
2023-03-15 23:47 ` Patrick Palka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2023-03-09 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick Palka, Marek Polacek; +Cc: GCC Patches
On 3/9/23 14:32, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
>> When processing a noexcept, constructors aren't elided: build_over_call
>> has
>> /* It's unsafe to elide the constructor when handling
>> a noexcept-expression, it may evaluate to the wrong
>> value (c++/53025). */
>> && (force_elide || cp_noexcept_operand == 0))
>> so the assert I added recently needs to be relaxed a little bit.
>>
>> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>>
>> PR c++/109030
>>
>> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * constexpr.cc (cxx_eval_call_expression): Relax assert.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C: New test.
>> ---
>> gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 6 +++++-
>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C | 9 +++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
>> index 364695b762c..5384d0e8e46 100644
>> --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
>> +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
>> @@ -2869,7 +2869,11 @@ cxx_eval_call_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree t,
>>
>> /* We used to shortcut trivial constructor/op= here, but nowadays
>> we can only get a trivial function here with -fno-elide-constructors. */
>> - gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun) || !flag_elide_constructors);
>> + gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun)
>> + || !flag_elide_constructors
>> + /* We don't elide constructors when processing
>> + a noexcept-expression. */
>> + || cp_noexcept_operand);
>
> It seems weird that we're performing constant evaluation within an
> unevaluated operand. Would it make sense to also fix this a second way
> by avoiding constant evaluation from maybe_constant_init when
> cp_unevaluated_operand && !manifestly_const_eval, like in maybe_constant_value?
Sounds good.
> IIUC since we could still have an evaluated subexpression withis
> noexcept, the two fixes would be complementary.
>
>>
>> bool non_constant_args = false;
>> new_call.bindings
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 00000000000..16db8eb79ee
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
>> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
>> +// PR c++/109030
>> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
>> +
>> +struct foo { };
>> +
>> +struct __as_receiver {
>> + foo empty_env;
>> +};
>> +void sched(foo __fun) noexcept(noexcept(__as_receiver{__fun})) { }
>>
>> base-commit: dfb14cdd796ad9df6b5f2def047ef36b29385902
>> --
>> 2.39.2
>>
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: noexcept and copy elision [PR109030]
2023-03-09 23:12 ` Jason Merrill
@ 2023-03-15 23:47 ` Patrick Palka
2023-03-16 14:09 ` Patrick Palka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Palka @ 2023-03-15 23:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: Patrick Palka, Marek Polacek, GCC Patches
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 3/9/23 14:32, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> > > When processing a noexcept, constructors aren't elided: build_over_call
> > > has
> > > /* It's unsafe to elide the constructor when handling
> > > a noexcept-expression, it may evaluate to the wrong
> > > value (c++/53025). */
> > > && (force_elide || cp_noexcept_operand == 0))
> > > so the assert I added recently needs to be relaxed a little bit.
> > >
> > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> > >
> > > PR c++/109030
> > >
> > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > > * constexpr.cc (cxx_eval_call_expression): Relax assert.
> > >
> > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C: New test.
> > > ---
> > > gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 6 +++++-
> > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C | 9 +++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
> > >
> > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > > index 364695b762c..5384d0e8e46 100644
> > > --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > > +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > > @@ -2869,7 +2869,11 @@ cxx_eval_call_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx,
> > > tree t,
> > > /* We used to shortcut trivial constructor/op= here, but nowadays
> > > we can only get a trivial function here with
> > > -fno-elide-constructors. */
> > > - gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun) || !flag_elide_constructors);
> > > + gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun)
> > > + || !flag_elide_constructors
> > > + /* We don't elide constructors when processing
> > > + a noexcept-expression. */
> > > + || cp_noexcept_operand);
> >
> > It seems weird that we're performing constant evaluation within an
> > unevaluated operand. Would it make sense to also fix this a second way
> > by avoiding constant evaluation from maybe_constant_init when
> > cp_unevaluated_operand && !manifestly_const_eval, like in
> > maybe_constant_value?
>
> Sounds good.
Hmm, while working on this I noticed we currently don't reject a version of
g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-inst1.C that list initializes an aggregate instead of
int (ever since r12-4425-g1595fe44e11a96):
struct A { int m; };
template<typename T> constexpr int f() { return T::value; }
template<bool B, typename T> void h(decltype(A{B ? f<T>() : 0})); // was int{...}
template<bool B, typename T> void h(...);
void x() {
h<false, int>(0); // OK?
}
ISTM we should instantiate f<int> here for the same reason we do in the
original version of the testcase, and for that to happen we need to
pass manifestly_const_eval=true in massage_init_elt. Does that seem
reasonable?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: noexcept and copy elision [PR109030]
2023-03-15 23:47 ` Patrick Palka
@ 2023-03-16 14:09 ` Patrick Palka
2023-03-16 14:38 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Palka @ 2023-03-16 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick Palka; +Cc: Jason Merrill, Marek Polacek, GCC Patches
On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > On 3/9/23 14:32, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > >
> > > > When processing a noexcept, constructors aren't elided: build_over_call
> > > > has
> > > > /* It's unsafe to elide the constructor when handling
> > > > a noexcept-expression, it may evaluate to the wrong
> > > > value (c++/53025). */
> > > > && (force_elide || cp_noexcept_operand == 0))
> > > > so the assert I added recently needs to be relaxed a little bit.
> > > >
> > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> > > >
> > > > PR c++/109030
> > > >
> > > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> > > >
> > > > * constexpr.cc (cxx_eval_call_expression): Relax assert.
> > > >
> > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > > >
> > > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C: New test.
> > > > ---
> > > > gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 6 +++++-
> > > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C | 9 +++++++++
> > > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > > > index 364695b762c..5384d0e8e46 100644
> > > > --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > > > +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > > > @@ -2869,7 +2869,11 @@ cxx_eval_call_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx,
> > > > tree t,
> > > > /* We used to shortcut trivial constructor/op= here, but nowadays
> > > > we can only get a trivial function here with
> > > > -fno-elide-constructors. */
> > > > - gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun) || !flag_elide_constructors);
> > > > + gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun)
> > > > + || !flag_elide_constructors
> > > > + /* We don't elide constructors when processing
> > > > + a noexcept-expression. */
> > > > + || cp_noexcept_operand);
> > >
> > > It seems weird that we're performing constant evaluation within an
> > > unevaluated operand. Would it make sense to also fix this a second way
> > > by avoiding constant evaluation from maybe_constant_init when
> > > cp_unevaluated_operand && !manifestly_const_eval, like in
> > > maybe_constant_value?
> >
> > Sounds good.
>
> Hmm, while working on this I noticed we currently don't reject a version of
> g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-inst1.C that list initializes an aggregate instead of
> int (ever since r12-4425-g1595fe44e11a96):
>
> struct A { int m; };
> template<typename T> constexpr int f() { return T::value; }
> template<bool B, typename T> void h(decltype(A{B ? f<T>() : 0})); // was int{...}
> template<bool B, typename T> void h(...);
> void x() {
> h<false, int>(0); // OK?
> }
>
> ISTM we should instantiate f<int> here for the same reason we do in the
> original version of the testcase, and for that to happen we need to
> pass manifestly_const_eval=true in massage_init_elt. Does that seem
> reasonable?
>
FWIW the reason this came up is because I tried contriving a testcase
for the aforementioned maybe_constant_init change, and I came up with:
struct __as_receiver {
int empty_env;
};
template<class T>
constexpr int f(T t) {
return t.fail;
};
using type = decltype(__as_receiver{f(0)}); // OK, f<int> no longer instantiated
which we used to reject and afterwards accept. But since the elements
of an initializer list are potentially constant evaluated, I wonder if
that that means f<int> should be instantiated here after all despite the
unevaluated context?
Here's the full patch for reference:
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] c++: maybe_constant_init and unevaluated operands [PR109030]
This testcase in this PR (already fixed by r13-6526-ge4692319fd5fc7)
illustrates that maybe_constant_init can be called on an unevaluated
operand (from massage_init_elt), so this entry point should limit
constant evaluation in that case, like maybe_constant_value does.
PR c++/109030
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.cc (maybe_constant_init_1): For an unevaluated
non-manifestly-constant operand, don't constant evaluate
and instead call fold_to_constant.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 2 ++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C | 14 ++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
index 8683c00596a..f325af375c8 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
@@ -8795,6 +8795,8 @@ maybe_constant_init_1 (tree t, tree decl, bool allow_non_constant,
&& (TREE_STATIC (decl) || DECL_EXTERNAL (decl)));
if (is_static)
manifestly_const_eval = true;
+ if (cp_unevaluated_operand && !manifestly_const_eval)
+ return fold_to_constant (t);
t = cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr (t, allow_non_constant, !is_static,
mce_value (manifestly_const_eval),
false, decl);
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..17005a92eb5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct __as_receiver {
+ int empty_env;
+};
+
+template<class T>
+constexpr int f(T t) {
+ return t.fail;
+};
+
+int main() {
+ using type = decltype(__as_receiver{f(0)}); // OK, f<int> not instantiated
+}
--
2.40.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: noexcept and copy elision [PR109030]
2023-03-16 14:09 ` Patrick Palka
@ 2023-03-16 14:38 ` Jason Merrill
2023-03-16 15:48 ` Patrick Palka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2023-03-16 14:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick Palka; +Cc: Marek Polacek, GCC Patches
On 3/16/23 10:09, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Patrick Palka wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/9/23 14:32, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When processing a noexcept, constructors aren't elided: build_over_call
>>>>> has
>>>>> /* It's unsafe to elide the constructor when handling
>>>>> a noexcept-expression, it may evaluate to the wrong
>>>>> value (c++/53025). */
>>>>> && (force_elide || cp_noexcept_operand == 0))
>>>>> so the assert I added recently needs to be relaxed a little bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>>>>>
>>>>> PR c++/109030
>>>>>
>>>>> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>>>>>
>>>>> * constexpr.cc (cxx_eval_call_expression): Relax assert.
>>>>>
>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>>>
>>>>> * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C: New test.
>>>>> ---
>>>>> gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 6 +++++-
>>>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C | 9 +++++++++
>>>>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
>>>>> index 364695b762c..5384d0e8e46 100644
>>>>> --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
>>>>> +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
>>>>> @@ -2869,7 +2869,11 @@ cxx_eval_call_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx,
>>>>> tree t,
>>>>> /* We used to shortcut trivial constructor/op= here, but nowadays
>>>>> we can only get a trivial function here with
>>>>> -fno-elide-constructors. */
>>>>> - gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun) || !flag_elide_constructors);
>>>>> + gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun)
>>>>> + || !flag_elide_constructors
>>>>> + /* We don't elide constructors when processing
>>>>> + a noexcept-expression. */
>>>>> + || cp_noexcept_operand);
>>>>
>>>> It seems weird that we're performing constant evaluation within an
>>>> unevaluated operand. Would it make sense to also fix this a second way
>>>> by avoiding constant evaluation from maybe_constant_init when
>>>> cp_unevaluated_operand && !manifestly_const_eval, like in
>>>> maybe_constant_value?
>>>
>>> Sounds good.
>>
>> Hmm, while working on this I noticed we currently don't reject a version of
>> g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-inst1.C that list initializes an aggregate instead of
>> int (ever since r12-4425-g1595fe44e11a96):
>>
>> struct A { int m; };
>> template<typename T> constexpr int f() { return T::value; }
>> template<bool B, typename T> void h(decltype(A{B ? f<T>() : 0})); // was int{...}
>> template<bool B, typename T> void h(...);
>> void x() {
>> h<false, int>(0); // OK?
>> }
>>
>> ISTM we should instantiate f<int> here for the same reason we do in the
>> original version of the testcase, and for that to happen we need to
>> pass manifestly_const_eval=true in massage_init_elt. Does that seem
>> reasonable?
>>
>
> FWIW the reason this came up is because I tried contriving a testcase
> for the aforementioned maybe_constant_init change, and I came up with:
>
> struct __as_receiver {
> int empty_env;
> };
>
> template<class T>
> constexpr int f(T t) {
> return t.fail;
> };
>
> using type = decltype(__as_receiver{f(0)}); // OK, f<int> no longer instantiated
>
> which we used to reject and afterwards accept. But since the elements
> of an initializer list are potentially constant evaluated, I wonder if
> that that means f<int> should be instantiated here after all despite the
> unevaluated context?
The relevant section of the standard would seem to be
https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#20 ; an immediate subexpression of a
braced-init-list is potentially constant-evaluated even though it isn't
potentially-evaluated or manifestly constant-evaluated.
It seems like the call to fold_non_dependent_expr in check_narrowing
ought to cause instantiation in this case, why doesn't it?
> Here's the full patch for reference:
>
> -- >8 --
>
> Subject: [PATCH] c++: maybe_constant_init and unevaluated operands [PR109030]
>
> This testcase in this PR (already fixed by r13-6526-ge4692319fd5fc7)
> illustrates that maybe_constant_init can be called on an unevaluated
> operand (from massage_init_elt), so this entry point should limit
> constant evaluation in that case, like maybe_constant_value does.
>
> PR c++/109030
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * constexpr.cc (maybe_constant_init_1): For an unevaluated
> non-manifestly-constant operand, don't constant evaluate
> and instead call fold_to_constant.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C: New test.
> ---
> gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 2 ++
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> index 8683c00596a..f325af375c8 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> @@ -8795,6 +8795,8 @@ maybe_constant_init_1 (tree t, tree decl, bool allow_non_constant,
> && (TREE_STATIC (decl) || DECL_EXTERNAL (decl)));
> if (is_static)
> manifestly_const_eval = true;
> + if (cp_unevaluated_operand && !manifestly_const_eval)
> + return fold_to_constant (t);
> t = cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr (t, allow_non_constant, !is_static,
> mce_value (manifestly_const_eval),
> false, decl);
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..17005a92eb5
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> +
> +struct __as_receiver {
> + int empty_env;
> +};
> +
> +template<class T>
> +constexpr int f(T t) {
> + return t.fail;
> +};
> +
> +int main() {
> + using type = decltype(__as_receiver{f(0)}); // OK, f<int> not instantiated
> +}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: noexcept and copy elision [PR109030]
2023-03-16 14:38 ` Jason Merrill
@ 2023-03-16 15:48 ` Patrick Palka
2023-03-16 15:59 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Palka @ 2023-03-16 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: Patrick Palka, Marek Polacek, GCC Patches
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 3/16/23 10:09, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Patrick Palka wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 3/9/23 14:32, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > When processing a noexcept, constructors aren't elided:
> > > > > > build_over_call
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > /* It's unsafe to elide the constructor when handling
> > > > > > a noexcept-expression, it may evaluate to the wrong
> > > > > > value (c++/53025). */
> > > > > > && (force_elide || cp_noexcept_operand == 0))
> > > > > > so the assert I added recently needs to be relaxed a little bit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PR c++/109030
> > > > > >
> > > > > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * constexpr.cc (cxx_eval_call_expression): Relax assert.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C: New test.
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 6 +++++-
> > > > > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C | 9 +++++++++
> > > > > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > > > > > index 364695b762c..5384d0e8e46 100644
> > > > > > --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > > > > > +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > > > > > @@ -2869,7 +2869,11 @@ cxx_eval_call_expression (const constexpr_ctx
> > > > > > *ctx,
> > > > > > tree t,
> > > > > > /* We used to shortcut trivial constructor/op= here, but
> > > > > > nowadays
> > > > > > we can only get a trivial function here with
> > > > > > -fno-elide-constructors. */
> > > > > > - gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun) ||
> > > > > > !flag_elide_constructors);
> > > > > > + gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun)
> > > > > > + || !flag_elide_constructors
> > > > > > + /* We don't elide constructors when processing
> > > > > > + a noexcept-expression. */
> > > > > > + || cp_noexcept_operand);
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems weird that we're performing constant evaluation within an
> > > > > unevaluated operand. Would it make sense to also fix this a second
> > > > > way
> > > > > by avoiding constant evaluation from maybe_constant_init when
> > > > > cp_unevaluated_operand && !manifestly_const_eval, like in
> > > > > maybe_constant_value?
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good.
> > >
> > > Hmm, while working on this I noticed we currently don't reject a version
> > > of
> > > g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-inst1.C that list initializes an aggregate instead
> > > of
> > > int (ever since r12-4425-g1595fe44e11a96):
> > >
> > > struct A { int m; };
> > > template<typename T> constexpr int f() { return T::value; }
> > > template<bool B, typename T> void h(decltype(A{B ? f<T>() : 0})); //
> > > was int{...}
> > > template<bool B, typename T> void h(...);
> > > void x() {
> > > h<false, int>(0); // OK?
> > > }
> > >
> > > ISTM we should instantiate f<int> here for the same reason we do in the
> > > original version of the testcase, and for that to happen we need to
> > > pass manifestly_const_eval=true in massage_init_elt. Does that seem
> > > reasonable?
> > >
> >
> > FWIW the reason this came up is because I tried contriving a testcase
> > for the aforementioned maybe_constant_init change, and I came up with:
> >
> > struct __as_receiver {
> > int empty_env;
> > };
> >
> > template<class T>
> > constexpr int f(T t) {
> > return t.fail;
> > };
> >
> > using type = decltype(__as_receiver{f(0)}); // OK, f<int> no longer
> > instantiated
> >
> > which we used to reject and afterwards accept. But since the elements
> > of an initializer list are potentially constant evaluated, I wonder if
> > that that means f<int> should be instantiated here after all despite the
> > unevaluated context?
>
> The relevant section of the standard would seem to be
> https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#20 ; an immediate subexpression of a
> braced-init-list is potentially constant-evaluated even though it isn't
> potentially-evaluated or manifestly constant-evaluated.
>
> It seems like the call to fold_non_dependent_expr in check_narrowing ought to
> cause instantiation in this case, why doesn't it?
Looks like check_narrowing isn't called at all in this aggr init case.
The call from e.g. convert_like_internal isn't reached because the
conversion for the initializer element is ck_identity, and don't ever
set conversion::check_narrowing for ck_identity conversions I think.
Yet for using 'type = decltype(int{f(0)});' (similar to the example in
[temp.inst]/8) we do call check_narrowing directly from
finish_compound_literal, despite the conversion effectively being an
identity conversion.
>
> > Here's the full patch for reference:
> >
> > -- >8 --
> >
> > Subject: [PATCH] c++: maybe_constant_init and unevaluated operands
> > [PR109030]
> >
> > This testcase in this PR (already fixed by r13-6526-ge4692319fd5fc7)
> > illustrates that maybe_constant_init can be called on an unevaluated
> > operand (from massage_init_elt), so this entry point should limit
> > constant evaluation in that case, like maybe_constant_value does.
> >
> > PR c++/109030
> >
> > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * constexpr.cc (maybe_constant_init_1): For an unevaluated
> > non-manifestly-constant operand, don't constant evaluate
> > and instead call fold_to_constant.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C: New test.
> > ---
> > gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 2 ++
> > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > index 8683c00596a..f325af375c8 100644
> > --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > @@ -8795,6 +8795,8 @@ maybe_constant_init_1 (tree t, tree decl, bool
> > allow_non_constant,
> > && (TREE_STATIC (decl) || DECL_EXTERNAL (decl)));
> > if (is_static)
> > manifestly_const_eval = true;
> > + if (cp_unevaluated_operand && !manifestly_const_eval)
> > + return fold_to_constant (t);
> > t = cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr (t, allow_non_constant,
> > !is_static,
> > mce_value (manifestly_const_eval),
> > false, decl);
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C
> > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..17005a92eb5
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C
> > @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> > +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> > +
> > +struct __as_receiver {
> > + int empty_env;
> > +};
> > +
> > +template<class T>
> > +constexpr int f(T t) {
> > + return t.fail;
> > +};
> > +
> > +int main() {
> > + using type = decltype(__as_receiver{f(0)}); // OK, f<int> not
> > instantiated
> > +}
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: noexcept and copy elision [PR109030]
2023-03-16 15:48 ` Patrick Palka
@ 2023-03-16 15:59 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2023-03-16 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick Palka; +Cc: Marek Polacek, GCC Patches
On 3/16/23 11:48, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/23 10:09, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/9/23 14:32, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When processing a noexcept, constructors aren't elided:
>>>>>>> build_over_call
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> /* It's unsafe to elide the constructor when handling
>>>>>>> a noexcept-expression, it may evaluate to the wrong
>>>>>>> value (c++/53025). */
>>>>>>> && (force_elide || cp_noexcept_operand == 0))
>>>>>>> so the assert I added recently needs to be relaxed a little bit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PR c++/109030
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * constexpr.cc (cxx_eval_call_expression): Relax assert.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C: New test.
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 6 +++++-
>>>>>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C | 9 +++++++++
>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
>>>>>>> index 364695b762c..5384d0e8e46 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
>>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
>>>>>>> @@ -2869,7 +2869,11 @@ cxx_eval_call_expression (const constexpr_ctx
>>>>>>> *ctx,
>>>>>>> tree t,
>>>>>>> /* We used to shortcut trivial constructor/op= here, but
>>>>>>> nowadays
>>>>>>> we can only get a trivial function here with
>>>>>>> -fno-elide-constructors. */
>>>>>>> - gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun) ||
>>>>>>> !flag_elide_constructors);
>>>>>>> + gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun)
>>>>>>> + || !flag_elide_constructors
>>>>>>> + /* We don't elide constructors when processing
>>>>>>> + a noexcept-expression. */
>>>>>>> + || cp_noexcept_operand);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems weird that we're performing constant evaluation within an
>>>>>> unevaluated operand. Would it make sense to also fix this a second
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> by avoiding constant evaluation from maybe_constant_init when
>>>>>> cp_unevaluated_operand && !manifestly_const_eval, like in
>>>>>> maybe_constant_value?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds good.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, while working on this I noticed we currently don't reject a version
>>>> of
>>>> g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-inst1.C that list initializes an aggregate instead
>>>> of
>>>> int (ever since r12-4425-g1595fe44e11a96):
>>>>
>>>> struct A { int m; };
>>>> template<typename T> constexpr int f() { return T::value; }
>>>> template<bool B, typename T> void h(decltype(A{B ? f<T>() : 0})); //
>>>> was int{...}
>>>> template<bool B, typename T> void h(...);
>>>> void x() {
>>>> h<false, int>(0); // OK?
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> ISTM we should instantiate f<int> here for the same reason we do in the
>>>> original version of the testcase, and for that to happen we need to
>>>> pass manifestly_const_eval=true in massage_init_elt. Does that seem
>>>> reasonable?
>>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW the reason this came up is because I tried contriving a testcase
>>> for the aforementioned maybe_constant_init change, and I came up with:
>>>
>>> struct __as_receiver {
>>> int empty_env;
>>> };
>>>
>>> template<class T>
>>> constexpr int f(T t) {
>>> return t.fail;
>>> };
>>>
>>> using type = decltype(__as_receiver{f(0)}); // OK, f<int> no longer
>>> instantiated
>>>
>>> which we used to reject and afterwards accept. But since the elements
>>> of an initializer list are potentially constant evaluated, I wonder if
>>> that that means f<int> should be instantiated here after all despite the
>>> unevaluated context?
>>
>> The relevant section of the standard would seem to be
>> https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#20 ; an immediate subexpression of a
>> braced-init-list is potentially constant-evaluated even though it isn't
>> potentially-evaluated or manifestly constant-evaluated.
>>
>> It seems like the call to fold_non_dependent_expr in check_narrowing ought to
>> cause instantiation in this case, why doesn't it?
>
> Looks like check_narrowing isn't called at all in this aggr init case.
> The call from e.g. convert_like_internal isn't reached because the
> conversion for the initializer element is ck_identity, and don't ever
> set conversion::check_narrowing for ck_identity conversions I think.
Ah, yes, that makes sense; an identity conversion can never be
narrowing, so we don't care about the constant value. So not
instantiating seems correct, and the patch is OK.
> Yet for using 'type = decltype(int{f(0)});' (similar to the example in
> [temp.inst]/8) we do call check_narrowing directly from
> finish_compound_literal, despite the conversion effectively being an
> identity conversion.
Hmm, maybe check_narrowing should defer constant evaluation until after
deciding that the target type is not a superset of the source type...
>>> Here's the full patch for reference:
>>>
>>> -- >8 --
>>>
>>> Subject: [PATCH] c++: maybe_constant_init and unevaluated operands
>>> [PR109030]
>>>
>>> This testcase in this PR (already fixed by r13-6526-ge4692319fd5fc7)
>>> illustrates that maybe_constant_init can be called on an unevaluated
>>> operand (from massage_init_elt), so this entry point should limit
>>> constant evaluation in that case, like maybe_constant_value does.
>>>
>>> PR c++/109030
>>>
>>> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> * constexpr.cc (maybe_constant_init_1): For an unevaluated
>>> non-manifestly-constant operand, don't constant evaluate
>>> and instead call fold_to_constant.
>>>
>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> * g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C: New test.
>>> ---
>>> gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 2 ++
>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
>>> index 8683c00596a..f325af375c8 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
>>> +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
>>> @@ -8795,6 +8795,8 @@ maybe_constant_init_1 (tree t, tree decl, bool
>>> allow_non_constant,
>>> && (TREE_STATIC (decl) || DECL_EXTERNAL (decl)));
>>> if (is_static)
>>> manifestly_const_eval = true;
>>> + if (cp_unevaluated_operand && !manifestly_const_eval)
>>> + return fold_to_constant (t);
>>> t = cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr (t, allow_non_constant,
>>> !is_static,
>>> mce_value (manifestly_const_eval),
>>> false, decl);
>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C
>>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 00000000000..17005a92eb5
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
>>> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
>>> +
>>> +struct __as_receiver {
>>> + int empty_env;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +template<class T>
>>> +constexpr int f(T t) {
>>> + return t.fail;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +int main() {
>>> + using type = decltype(__as_receiver{f(0)}); // OK, f<int> not
>>> instantiated
>>> +}
>>
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-03-16 15:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-03-06 23:59 [PATCH] c++: noexcept and copy elision [PR109030] Marek Polacek
2023-03-07 14:55 ` Jason Merrill
2023-03-09 19:32 ` Patrick Palka
2023-03-09 23:12 ` Jason Merrill
2023-03-15 23:47 ` Patrick Palka
2023-03-16 14:09 ` Patrick Palka
2023-03-16 14:38 ` Jason Merrill
2023-03-16 15:48 ` Patrick Palka
2023-03-16 15:59 ` Jason Merrill
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).