* [PATCH] c++: ICE with noexcept and local specialization, again [PR114349]
@ 2024-03-21 21:01 Marek Polacek
2024-03-21 21:27 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marek Polacek @ 2024-03-21 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GCC Patches, Jason Merrill, Patrick Palka
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
-- >8 --
Patrick noticed that my r14-9339-gdc6c3bfb59baab patch is wrong;
we're dealing with a noexcept-spec there, not a noexcept-expr, so
setting cp_noexcept_operand et al is incorrect. Back to the drawing
board then.
To fix noexcept84.C, we should probably avoid doing push_to_top_level
in certain cases. Patrick suggested checking:
const bool push_to_top = current_function_decl != fn;
which works, but I'm not sure I follow the logic there. I also came
up with
const bool push_to_top = !decl_function_context (fn);
which also works. But ultimately I went with !DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATED;
if DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATED is set, we've already pushed to top level
if it was necessary in instantiate_body.
This also fixes c++/114349, introduced by r14-9339.
PR c++/114349
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* pt.cc (maybe_instantiate_noexcept): Don't push_to_top_level if
fn has already been instantiated. Don't save/restore
cp_unevaluated_operand, c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings, and
cp_noexcept_operand around the tsubst_expr call.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/pt.cc | 17 ++++++-------
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C | 25 +++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.cc b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
index 8cf0d5b7a8d..b7ebd93ac7d 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
@@ -26855,7 +26855,12 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t complain)
}
else if (push_tinst_level (fn))
{
- push_to_top_level ();
+ /* If we've already instantiated FN, there's no need to push to
+ top level (as instantiate_body already pushed to top level if
+ needed). */
+ const bool push_to_top = !DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATED (fn);
+ if (push_to_top)
+ push_to_top_level ();
push_access_scope (fn);
push_deferring_access_checks (dk_no_deferred);
input_location = DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (fn);
@@ -26878,17 +26883,10 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t complain)
if (orig_fn)
++processing_template_decl;
- ++cp_unevaluated_operand;
- ++c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
- ++cp_noexcept_operand;
/* Do deferred instantiation of the noexcept-specifier. */
noex = tsubst_expr (DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT_PATTERN (noex),
DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT_ARGS (noex),
tf_warning_or_error, fn);
- --cp_unevaluated_operand;
- --c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
- --cp_noexcept_operand;
-
/* Build up the noexcept-specification. */
spec = build_noexcept_spec (noex, tf_warning_or_error);
@@ -26898,7 +26896,8 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t complain)
pop_deferring_access_checks ();
pop_access_scope (fn);
pop_tinst_level ();
- pop_from_top_level ();
+ if (push_to_top)
+ pop_from_top_level ();
}
else
spec = noexcept_false_spec;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..b415bb46bc9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+// PR c++/114349
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+using A = struct {};
+template <template <typename> class, typename, typename>
+using B = A;
+template <typename T>
+using C = typename T::D;
+struct E {
+ using D = B<C, int, A>;
+};
+template <class> constexpr bool foo (A) { return false; }
+template <class T> struct F {
+ using G = T;
+ using H = E;
+ F(const F &);
+ void operator=(F) noexcept(foo <G> (H::D{}));
+};
+template <typename, typename, typename>
+using I = F<int>;
+template <typename K, typename V, typename H = K>
+using J = I<K, V, H>;
+struct K {
+ typedef J<long, char> L;
+ L k;
+ K();
+};
+struct M {
+ bool bar () const;
+ K::L m;
+};
+K n;
+bool M::bar () const { n.k = m; return true; }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..2d040c090f5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+// PR c++/114349
+// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } }
+
+struct B
+{
+ int i;
+};
+
+template <bool BA>
+void
+goo ()
+{
+ constexpr bool is_yes = BA;
+ struct C
+ {
+ static auto g(B b) noexcept(is_yes) { }
+ };
+ C::g({});
+}
+
+void
+x ()
+{
+ goo<false>();
+}
base-commit: 48d49200510198cafcab55601cd8e5f8eb541f01
--
2.44.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: ICE with noexcept and local specialization, again [PR114349]
2024-03-21 21:01 [PATCH] c++: ICE with noexcept and local specialization, again [PR114349] Marek Polacek
@ 2024-03-21 21:27 ` Jason Merrill
2024-03-22 21:30 ` [PATCH v2] " Marek Polacek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2024-03-21 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marek Polacek, GCC Patches, Patrick Palka
On 3/21/24 17:01, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>
> -- >8 --
> Patrick noticed that my r14-9339-gdc6c3bfb59baab patch is wrong;
> we're dealing with a noexcept-spec there, not a noexcept-expr, so
> setting cp_noexcept_operand et al is incorrect. Back to the drawing
> board then.
>
> To fix noexcept84.C, we should probably avoid doing push_to_top_level
> in certain cases. Patrick suggested checking:
>
> const bool push_to_top = current_function_decl != fn;
>
> which works, but I'm not sure I follow the logic there. I also came
> up with
>
> const bool push_to_top = !decl_function_context (fn);
>
> which also works. But ultimately I went with !DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATED;
> if DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATED is set, we've already pushed to top level
> if it was necessary in instantiate_body.
This sort of thing is what maybe_push_to_top_level is for, does that
also work?
> This also fixes c++/114349, introduced by r14-9339.
>
> PR c++/114349
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * pt.cc (maybe_instantiate_noexcept): Don't push_to_top_level if
> fn has already been instantiated. Don't save/restore
> cp_unevaluated_operand, c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings, and
> cp_noexcept_operand around the tsubst_expr call.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C: New test.
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C: New test.
> ---
> gcc/cp/pt.cc | 17 ++++++-------
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C | 25 +++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.cc b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
> index 8cf0d5b7a8d..b7ebd93ac7d 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/pt.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
> @@ -26855,7 +26855,12 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t complain)
> }
> else if (push_tinst_level (fn))
> {
> - push_to_top_level ();
> + /* If we've already instantiated FN, there's no need to push to
> + top level (as instantiate_body already pushed to top level if
> + needed). */
> + const bool push_to_top = !DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATED (fn);
> + if (push_to_top)
> + push_to_top_level ();
> push_access_scope (fn);
> push_deferring_access_checks (dk_no_deferred);
> input_location = DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (fn);
> @@ -26878,17 +26883,10 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t complain)
> if (orig_fn)
> ++processing_template_decl;
>
> - ++cp_unevaluated_operand;
> - ++c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
> - ++cp_noexcept_operand;
> /* Do deferred instantiation of the noexcept-specifier. */
> noex = tsubst_expr (DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT_PATTERN (noex),
> DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT_ARGS (noex),
> tf_warning_or_error, fn);
> - --cp_unevaluated_operand;
> - --c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
> - --cp_noexcept_operand;
> -
> /* Build up the noexcept-specification. */
> spec = build_noexcept_spec (noex, tf_warning_or_error);
>
> @@ -26898,7 +26896,8 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t complain)
> pop_deferring_access_checks ();
> pop_access_scope (fn);
> pop_tinst_level ();
> - pop_from_top_level ();
> + if (push_to_top)
> + pop_from_top_level ();
> }
> else
> spec = noexcept_false_spec;
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..b415bb46bc9
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> +// PR c++/114349
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> +
> +using A = struct {};
> +template <template <typename> class, typename, typename>
> +using B = A;
> +template <typename T>
> +using C = typename T::D;
> +struct E {
> + using D = B<C, int, A>;
> +};
> +template <class> constexpr bool foo (A) { return false; }
> +template <class T> struct F {
> + using G = T;
> + using H = E;
> + F(const F &);
> + void operator=(F) noexcept(foo <G> (H::D{}));
> +};
> +template <typename, typename, typename>
> +using I = F<int>;
> +template <typename K, typename V, typename H = K>
> +using J = I<K, V, H>;
> +struct K {
> + typedef J<long, char> L;
> + L k;
> + K();
> +};
> +struct M {
> + bool bar () const;
> + K::L m;
> +};
> +K n;
> +bool M::bar () const { n.k = m; return true; }
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..2d040c090f5
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
> +// PR c++/114349
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } }
> +
> +struct B
> +{
> + int i;
> +};
> +
> +template <bool BA>
> +void
> +goo ()
> +{
> + constexpr bool is_yes = BA;
> + struct C
> + {
> + static auto g(B b) noexcept(is_yes) { }
> + };
> + C::g({});
> +}
> +
> +void
> +x ()
> +{
> + goo<false>();
> +}
>
> base-commit: 48d49200510198cafcab55601cd8e5f8eb541f01
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] c++: ICE with noexcept and local specialization, again [PR114349]
2024-03-21 21:27 ` Jason Merrill
@ 2024-03-22 21:30 ` Marek Polacek
2024-03-25 19:40 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marek Polacek @ 2024-03-22 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: GCC Patches, Patrick Palka
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 05:27:37PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 3/21/24 17:01, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> >
> > -- >8 --
> > Patrick noticed that my r14-9339-gdc6c3bfb59baab patch is wrong;
> > we're dealing with a noexcept-spec there, not a noexcept-expr, so
> > setting cp_noexcept_operand et al is incorrect. Back to the drawing
> > board then.
> >
> > To fix noexcept84.C, we should probably avoid doing push_to_top_level
> > in certain cases. Patrick suggested checking:
> >
> > const bool push_to_top = current_function_decl != fn;
> >
> > which works, but I'm not sure I follow the logic there. I also came
> > up with
> >
> > const bool push_to_top = !decl_function_context (fn);
> >
> > which also works. But ultimately I went with !DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATED;
> > if DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATED is set, we've already pushed to top level
> > if it was necessary in instantiate_body.
>
> This sort of thing is what maybe_push_to_top_level is for, does that also
> work?
Sadly -- and I should have mentioned that -- no. maybe_push_to_top_level asks:
bool push_to_top
= !(current_function_decl
&& !LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P (d)
&& decl_function_context (d) == current_function_decl);
here both d and current_function_decl are test()::S::S(), and
decl_function_context (d) is test(). (current_function_decl was
set to test()::S::S() by an earlier push_access_scope call.)
But I want it to work, and I think using maybe_ would be a way nicer
fix. So what if we don't push to top level if decl_function_context
is non-null? I had to add the LAMBDA_TYPE_P check though: it looks
that we always have to push to top level for lambdas, but sometimes
we get a lambda's TYPE_DECL, and LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P doesn't catch
that. An example is lambda-nested4.C.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
-- >8 --
Patrick noticed that my r14-9339-gdc6c3bfb59baab patch is wrong;
we're dealing with a noexcept-spec there, not a noexcept-expr, so
setting cp_noexcept_operand et al is incorrect. Back to the drawing
board then.
To fix noexcept84.C, we should probably avoid doing push_to_top_level
in certain cases. maybe_push_to_top_level didn't work here as-is, so
I changed it to not push to top level if decl_function_context is
non-null, when we are not dealing with a lambda.
This also fixes c++/114349, introduced by r14-9339.
PR c++/114349
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* name-lookup.cc (maybe_push_to_top_level): For a non-lambda,
don't push to top level if decl_function_context is non-null.
* pt.cc (maybe_instantiate_noexcept): Use maybe_push_to_top_level.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc | 12 ++++++---
gcc/cp/pt.cc | 11 ++-------
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C | 25 +++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc
index dce4caf8981..4b2b27bdd0d 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc
@@ -8664,10 +8664,14 @@ maybe_push_to_top_level (tree d)
{
/* Push if D isn't function-local, or is a lambda function, for which name
resolution is already done. */
- bool push_to_top
- = !(current_function_decl
- && !LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P (d)
- && decl_function_context (d) == current_function_decl);
+ const bool push_to_top
+ = (LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P (d)
+ || (TREE_CODE (d) == TYPE_DECL
+ && TREE_TYPE (d)
+ && LAMBDA_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (d)))
+ || !current_function_decl
+ || (!decl_function_context (d)
+ && decl_function_context (d) != current_function_decl));
if (push_to_top)
push_to_top_level ();
diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.cc b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
index 8cf0d5b7a8d..7b00a8615d2 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
@@ -26855,7 +26855,7 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t complain)
}
else if (push_tinst_level (fn))
{
- push_to_top_level ();
+ const bool push_to_top = maybe_push_to_top_level (fn);
push_access_scope (fn);
push_deferring_access_checks (dk_no_deferred);
input_location = DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (fn);
@@ -26878,17 +26878,10 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t complain)
if (orig_fn)
++processing_template_decl;
- ++cp_unevaluated_operand;
- ++c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
- ++cp_noexcept_operand;
/* Do deferred instantiation of the noexcept-specifier. */
noex = tsubst_expr (DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT_PATTERN (noex),
DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT_ARGS (noex),
tf_warning_or_error, fn);
- --cp_unevaluated_operand;
- --c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
- --cp_noexcept_operand;
-
/* Build up the noexcept-specification. */
spec = build_noexcept_spec (noex, tf_warning_or_error);
@@ -26898,7 +26891,7 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t complain)
pop_deferring_access_checks ();
pop_access_scope (fn);
pop_tinst_level ();
- pop_from_top_level ();
+ maybe_pop_from_top_level (push_to_top);
}
else
spec = noexcept_false_spec;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..b415bb46bc9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+// PR c++/114349
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+using A = struct {};
+template <template <typename> class, typename, typename>
+using B = A;
+template <typename T>
+using C = typename T::D;
+struct E {
+ using D = B<C, int, A>;
+};
+template <class> constexpr bool foo (A) { return false; }
+template <class T> struct F {
+ using G = T;
+ using H = E;
+ F(const F &);
+ void operator=(F) noexcept(foo <G> (H::D{}));
+};
+template <typename, typename, typename>
+using I = F<int>;
+template <typename K, typename V, typename H = K>
+using J = I<K, V, H>;
+struct K {
+ typedef J<long, char> L;
+ L k;
+ K();
+};
+struct M {
+ bool bar () const;
+ K::L m;
+};
+K n;
+bool M::bar () const { n.k = m; return true; }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..2d040c090f5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+// PR c++/114349
+// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } }
+
+struct B
+{
+ int i;
+};
+
+template <bool BA>
+void
+goo ()
+{
+ constexpr bool is_yes = BA;
+ struct C
+ {
+ static auto g(B b) noexcept(is_yes) { }
+ };
+ C::g({});
+}
+
+void
+x ()
+{
+ goo<false>();
+}
base-commit: 65b7d1862e11784a0ce67ab758e06dd8aa65b181
--
2.44.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] c++: ICE with noexcept and local specialization, again [PR114349]
2024-03-22 21:30 ` [PATCH v2] " Marek Polacek
@ 2024-03-25 19:40 ` Jason Merrill
2024-03-25 22:17 ` [PATCH v3] " Marek Polacek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2024-03-25 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marek Polacek; +Cc: GCC Patches, Patrick Palka
On 3/22/24 17:30, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 05:27:37PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 3/21/24 17:01, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>>>
>>> -- >8 --
>>> Patrick noticed that my r14-9339-gdc6c3bfb59baab patch is wrong;
>>> we're dealing with a noexcept-spec there, not a noexcept-expr, so
>>> setting cp_noexcept_operand et al is incorrect. Back to the drawing
>>> board then.
>>>
>>> To fix noexcept84.C, we should probably avoid doing push_to_top_level
>>> in certain cases. Patrick suggested checking:
>>>
>>> const bool push_to_top = current_function_decl != fn;
>>>
>>> which works, but I'm not sure I follow the logic there. I also came
>>> up with
>>>
>>> const bool push_to_top = !decl_function_context (fn);
>>>
>>> which also works. But ultimately I went with !DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATED;
>>> if DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATED is set, we've already pushed to top level
>>> if it was necessary in instantiate_body.
>>
>> This sort of thing is what maybe_push_to_top_level is for, does that also
>> work?
>
> Sadly -- and I should have mentioned that -- no. maybe_push_to_top_level asks:
>
> bool push_to_top
> = !(current_function_decl
> && !LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P (d)
> && decl_function_context (d) == current_function_decl);
>
> here both d and current_function_decl are test()::S::S(), and
> decl_function_context (d) is test(). (current_function_decl was
> set to test()::S::S() by an earlier push_access_scope call.)
>
> But I want it to work, and I think using maybe_ would be a way nicer
> fix. So what if we don't push to top level if decl_function_context
> is non-null? I had to add the LAMBDA_TYPE_P check though: it looks
> that we always have to push to top level for lambdas, but sometimes
> we get a lambda's TYPE_DECL, and LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P doesn't catch
> that. An example is lambda-nested4.C.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>
> -- >8 --
> Patrick noticed that my r14-9339-gdc6c3bfb59baab patch is wrong;
> we're dealing with a noexcept-spec there, not a noexcept-expr, so
> setting cp_noexcept_operand et al is incorrect. Back to the drawing
> board then.
>
> To fix noexcept84.C, we should probably avoid doing push_to_top_level
> in certain cases. maybe_push_to_top_level didn't work here as-is, so
> I changed it to not push to top level if decl_function_context is
> non-null, when we are not dealing with a lambda.
>
> This also fixes c++/114349, introduced by r14-9339.
>
> PR c++/114349
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * name-lookup.cc (maybe_push_to_top_level): For a non-lambda,
> don't push to top level if decl_function_context is non-null.
> * pt.cc (maybe_instantiate_noexcept): Use maybe_push_to_top_level.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C: New test.
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C: New test.
> ---
> gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc | 12 ++++++---
> gcc/cp/pt.cc | 11 ++-------
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C | 25 +++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc
> index dce4caf8981..4b2b27bdd0d 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc
> @@ -8664,10 +8664,14 @@ maybe_push_to_top_level (tree d)
> {
> /* Push if D isn't function-local, or is a lambda function, for which name
> resolution is already done. */
> - bool push_to_top
> - = !(current_function_decl
> - && !LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P (d)
> - && decl_function_context (d) == current_function_decl);
> + const bool push_to_top
> + = (LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P (d)
> + || (TREE_CODE (d) == TYPE_DECL
> + && TREE_TYPE (d)
> + && LAMBDA_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (d)))
> + || !current_function_decl
> + || (!decl_function_context (d)
> + && decl_function_context (d) != current_function_decl));
This line seems unnecessary; the case it excludes is when
decl_function_context and current_function_decl are both null, but if
current_function_decl is null we already succeeded.
OK with this line removed.
> if (push_to_top)
> push_to_top_level ();
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.cc b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
> index 8cf0d5b7a8d..7b00a8615d2 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/pt.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
> @@ -26855,7 +26855,7 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t complain)
> }
> else if (push_tinst_level (fn))
> {
> - push_to_top_level ();
> + const bool push_to_top = maybe_push_to_top_level (fn);
> push_access_scope (fn);
> push_deferring_access_checks (dk_no_deferred);
> input_location = DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (fn);
> @@ -26878,17 +26878,10 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t complain)
> if (orig_fn)
> ++processing_template_decl;
>
> - ++cp_unevaluated_operand;
> - ++c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
> - ++cp_noexcept_operand;
> /* Do deferred instantiation of the noexcept-specifier. */
> noex = tsubst_expr (DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT_PATTERN (noex),
> DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT_ARGS (noex),
> tf_warning_or_error, fn);
> - --cp_unevaluated_operand;
> - --c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
> - --cp_noexcept_operand;
> -
> /* Build up the noexcept-specification. */
> spec = build_noexcept_spec (noex, tf_warning_or_error);
>
> @@ -26898,7 +26891,7 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t complain)
> pop_deferring_access_checks ();
> pop_access_scope (fn);
> pop_tinst_level ();
> - pop_from_top_level ();
> + maybe_pop_from_top_level (push_to_top);
> }
> else
> spec = noexcept_false_spec;
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..b415bb46bc9
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> +// PR c++/114349
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> +
> +using A = struct {};
> +template <template <typename> class, typename, typename>
> +using B = A;
> +template <typename T>
> +using C = typename T::D;
> +struct E {
> + using D = B<C, int, A>;
> +};
> +template <class> constexpr bool foo (A) { return false; }
> +template <class T> struct F {
> + using G = T;
> + using H = E;
> + F(const F &);
> + void operator=(F) noexcept(foo <G> (H::D{}));
> +};
> +template <typename, typename, typename>
> +using I = F<int>;
> +template <typename K, typename V, typename H = K>
> +using J = I<K, V, H>;
> +struct K {
> + typedef J<long, char> L;
> + L k;
> + K();
> +};
> +struct M {
> + bool bar () const;
> + K::L m;
> +};
> +K n;
> +bool M::bar () const { n.k = m; return true; }
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..2d040c090f5
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
> +// PR c++/114349
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } }
> +
> +struct B
> +{
> + int i;
> +};
> +
> +template <bool BA>
> +void
> +goo ()
> +{
> + constexpr bool is_yes = BA;
> + struct C
> + {
> + static auto g(B b) noexcept(is_yes) { }
> + };
> + C::g({});
> +}
> +
> +void
> +x ()
> +{
> + goo<false>();
> +}
>
> base-commit: 65b7d1862e11784a0ce67ab758e06dd8aa65b181
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3] c++: ICE with noexcept and local specialization, again [PR114349]
2024-03-25 19:40 ` Jason Merrill
@ 2024-03-25 22:17 ` Marek Polacek
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marek Polacek @ 2024-03-25 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: GCC Patches, Patrick Palka
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 03:40:10PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 3/22/24 17:30, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 05:27:37PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 3/21/24 17:01, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> > > >
> > > > -- >8 --
> > > > Patrick noticed that my r14-9339-gdc6c3bfb59baab patch is wrong;
> > > > we're dealing with a noexcept-spec there, not a noexcept-expr, so
> > > > setting cp_noexcept_operand et al is incorrect. Back to the drawing
> > > > board then.
> > > >
> > > > To fix noexcept84.C, we should probably avoid doing push_to_top_level
> > > > in certain cases. Patrick suggested checking:
> > > >
> > > > const bool push_to_top = current_function_decl != fn;
> > > >
> > > > which works, but I'm not sure I follow the logic there. I also came
> > > > up with
> > > >
> > > > const bool push_to_top = !decl_function_context (fn);
> > > >
> > > > which also works. But ultimately I went with !DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATED;
> > > > if DECL_TEMPLATE_INSTANTIATED is set, we've already pushed to top level
> > > > if it was necessary in instantiate_body.
> > >
> > > This sort of thing is what maybe_push_to_top_level is for, does that also
> > > work?
> >
> > Sadly -- and I should have mentioned that -- no. maybe_push_to_top_level asks:
> >
> > bool push_to_top
> > = !(current_function_decl
> > && !LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P (d)
> > && decl_function_context (d) == current_function_decl);
> >
> > here both d and current_function_decl are test()::S::S(), and
> > decl_function_context (d) is test(). (current_function_decl was
> > set to test()::S::S() by an earlier push_access_scope call.)
> >
> > But I want it to work, and I think using maybe_ would be a way nicer
> > fix. So what if we don't push to top level if decl_function_context
> > is non-null? I had to add the LAMBDA_TYPE_P check though: it looks
> > that we always have to push to top level for lambdas, but sometimes
> > we get a lambda's TYPE_DECL, and LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P doesn't catch
> > that. An example is lambda-nested4.C.
> >
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> >
> > -- >8 --
> > Patrick noticed that my r14-9339-gdc6c3bfb59baab patch is wrong;
> > we're dealing with a noexcept-spec there, not a noexcept-expr, so
> > setting cp_noexcept_operand et al is incorrect. Back to the drawing
> > board then.
> >
> > To fix noexcept84.C, we should probably avoid doing push_to_top_level
> > in certain cases. maybe_push_to_top_level didn't work here as-is, so
> > I changed it to not push to top level if decl_function_context is
> > non-null, when we are not dealing with a lambda.
> >
> > This also fixes c++/114349, introduced by r14-9339.
> >
> > PR c++/114349
> >
> > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * name-lookup.cc (maybe_push_to_top_level): For a non-lambda,
> > don't push to top level if decl_function_context is non-null.
> > * pt.cc (maybe_instantiate_noexcept): Use maybe_push_to_top_level.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C: New test.
> > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C: New test.
> > ---
> > gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc | 12 ++++++---
> > gcc/cp/pt.cc | 11 ++-------
> > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C | 25 +++++++++++++++++++
> > 4 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc
> > index dce4caf8981..4b2b27bdd0d 100644
> > --- a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc
> > @@ -8664,10 +8664,14 @@ maybe_push_to_top_level (tree d)
> > {
> > /* Push if D isn't function-local, or is a lambda function, for which name
> > resolution is already done. */
> > - bool push_to_top
> > - = !(current_function_decl
> > - && !LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P (d)
> > - && decl_function_context (d) == current_function_decl);
> > + const bool push_to_top
> > + = (LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P (d)
> > + || (TREE_CODE (d) == TYPE_DECL
> > + && TREE_TYPE (d)
> > + && LAMBDA_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (d)))
> > + || !current_function_decl
> > + || (!decl_function_context (d)
> > + && decl_function_context (d) != current_function_decl));
>
> This line seems unnecessary; the case it excludes is when
> decl_function_context and current_function_decl are both null, but if
> current_function_decl is null we already succeeded.
>
> OK with this line removed.
Thanks a lot. I've verified that the following version passes a bootstrap/regtest
on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
-- >8 --
Patrick noticed that my r14-9339-gdc6c3bfb59baab patch is wrong;
we're dealing with a noexcept-spec there, not a noexcept-expr, so
setting cp_noexcept_operand et al is incorrect. Back to the drawing
board then.
To fix noexcept84.C, we should probably avoid doing push_to_top_level
in certain cases. maybe_push_to_top_level didn't work here as-is, so
I changed it to not push to top level if decl_function_context is
non-null, when we are not dealing with a lambda.
This also fixes c++/114349, introduced by r14-9339.
PR c++/114349
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* name-lookup.cc (maybe_push_to_top_level): For a non-lambda,
don't push to top level if decl_function_context is non-null.
* pt.cc (maybe_instantiate_noexcept): Use maybe_push_to_top_level.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc | 11 ++++++---
gcc/cp/pt.cc | 11 ++-------
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C | 25 +++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc
index dce4caf8981..7af7f00e34c 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.cc
@@ -8664,10 +8664,13 @@ maybe_push_to_top_level (tree d)
{
/* Push if D isn't function-local, or is a lambda function, for which name
resolution is already done. */
- bool push_to_top
- = !(current_function_decl
- && !LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P (d)
- && decl_function_context (d) == current_function_decl);
+ const bool push_to_top
+ = (LAMBDA_FUNCTION_P (d)
+ || (TREE_CODE (d) == TYPE_DECL
+ && TREE_TYPE (d)
+ && LAMBDA_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (d)))
+ || !current_function_decl
+ || !decl_function_context (d));
if (push_to_top)
push_to_top_level ();
diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.cc b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
index 8cf0d5b7a8d..7b00a8615d2 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
@@ -26855,7 +26855,7 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t complain)
}
else if (push_tinst_level (fn))
{
- push_to_top_level ();
+ const bool push_to_top = maybe_push_to_top_level (fn);
push_access_scope (fn);
push_deferring_access_checks (dk_no_deferred);
input_location = DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (fn);
@@ -26878,17 +26878,10 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t complain)
if (orig_fn)
++processing_template_decl;
- ++cp_unevaluated_operand;
- ++c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
- ++cp_noexcept_operand;
/* Do deferred instantiation of the noexcept-specifier. */
noex = tsubst_expr (DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT_PATTERN (noex),
DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT_ARGS (noex),
tf_warning_or_error, fn);
- --cp_unevaluated_operand;
- --c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
- --cp_noexcept_operand;
-
/* Build up the noexcept-specification. */
spec = build_noexcept_spec (noex, tf_warning_or_error);
@@ -26898,7 +26891,7 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t complain)
pop_deferring_access_checks ();
pop_access_scope (fn);
pop_tinst_level ();
- pop_from_top_level ();
+ maybe_pop_from_top_level (push_to_top);
}
else
spec = noexcept_false_spec;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..b415bb46bc9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept85.C
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+// PR c++/114349
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+using A = struct {};
+template <template <typename> class, typename, typename>
+using B = A;
+template <typename T>
+using C = typename T::D;
+struct E {
+ using D = B<C, int, A>;
+};
+template <class> constexpr bool foo (A) { return false; }
+template <class T> struct F {
+ using G = T;
+ using H = E;
+ F(const F &);
+ void operator=(F) noexcept(foo <G> (H::D{}));
+};
+template <typename, typename, typename>
+using I = F<int>;
+template <typename K, typename V, typename H = K>
+using J = I<K, V, H>;
+struct K {
+ typedef J<long, char> L;
+ L k;
+ K();
+};
+struct M {
+ bool bar () const;
+ K::L m;
+};
+K n;
+bool M::bar () const { n.k = m; return true; }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..2d040c090f5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept86.C
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+// PR c++/114349
+// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } }
+
+struct B
+{
+ int i;
+};
+
+template <bool BA>
+void
+goo ()
+{
+ constexpr bool is_yes = BA;
+ struct C
+ {
+ static auto g(B b) noexcept(is_yes) { }
+ };
+ C::g({});
+}
+
+void
+x ()
+{
+ goo<false>();
+}
base-commit: 18555b914316e8c1fb11ee821f2ee839d834e58e
--
2.44.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-03-25 22:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-03-21 21:01 [PATCH] c++: ICE with noexcept and local specialization, again [PR114349] Marek Polacek
2024-03-21 21:27 ` Jason Merrill
2024-03-22 21:30 ` [PATCH v2] " Marek Polacek
2024-03-25 19:40 ` Jason Merrill
2024-03-25 22:17 ` [PATCH v3] " Marek Polacek
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).