* [PATCH] c++: wrong looser excep spec for dep noexcept [PR113158]
@ 2024-02-15 22:17 Marek Polacek
2024-02-16 20:58 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Marek Polacek @ 2024-02-15 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill, GCC Patches
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
By the ??? below I mean that maybe_instantiate_noexcept could return
a tristate, and then maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec could check
if (maybe_instantiate_noexcept ().is_unknown ())
return true;
and we don't have to add any new checks to maybe_check_o_e_spec.
-- >8 --
Here we find ourselves in maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec in
a template context where we can't instantiate a dependent noexcept.
That's OK, but we have to defer the checking otherwise we give wrong
errors.
PR c++/113158
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* search.cc (maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec): Defer checking
when a noexcept couldn't be instantiated.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/search.cc | 7 +++++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/search.cc b/gcc/cp/search.cc
index c948839dc53..73d254d6b84 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/search.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/search.cc
@@ -1975,6 +1975,13 @@ maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec (tree overrider, tree basefn)
|| UNPARSED_NOEXCEPT_SPEC_P (over_throw))
return true;
+ /* We also have to defer checking when we're in a template and couldn't
+ instantiate the noexcept yet.
+ ??? maybe_instantiate_noexcept already checked these. Use tristate? */
+ if (type_dependent_expression_p (base_throw)
+ || type_dependent_expression_p (over_throw))
+ return true;
+
if (!comp_except_specs (base_throw, over_throw, ce_derived))
{
auto_diagnostic_group d;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..47832bbb44d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+// PR c++/113158
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+template<typename T>
+struct V {
+ static constexpr bool t = false;
+};
+struct base {
+ virtual int f() = 0;
+};
+
+template<typename T>
+struct derived : base {
+ int f() noexcept(V<T>::t) override;
+};
+
+struct base2 {
+ virtual int f() noexcept = 0;
+};
+
+template<bool B>
+struct W {
+ static constexpr bool t = B;
+};
+
+template<bool B>
+struct derived2 : base2 {
+ int f() noexcept(W<B>::t) override; // { dg-error "looser exception specification" }
+};
+
+void
+g ()
+{
+ derived<int> d1;
+ derived2<false> d2; // { dg-message "required from here" }
+ derived2<true> d3;
+}
base-commit: b3b3bd250f0a7c22b7d46d3522c8b94c6a35d22a
prerequisite-patch-id: 3beddc8cae6ef7f28cd7eac7240d5f4dad08e5f7
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: wrong looser excep spec for dep noexcept [PR113158]
2024-02-15 22:17 [PATCH] c++: wrong looser excep spec for dep noexcept [PR113158] Marek Polacek
@ 2024-02-16 20:58 ` Jason Merrill
2024-02-16 21:33 ` [PATCH v2] " Marek Polacek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2024-02-16 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marek Polacek, GCC Patches
On 2/15/24 17:17, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>
> By the ??? below I mean that maybe_instantiate_noexcept could return
> a tristate, and then maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec could check
>
> if (maybe_instantiate_noexcept ().is_unknown ())
> return true;
>
> and we don't have to add any new checks to maybe_check_o_e_spec.
>
> -- >8 --
> Here we find ourselves in maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec in
> a template context where we can't instantiate a dependent noexcept.
> That's OK, but we have to defer the checking otherwise we give wrong
> errors.
>
> PR c++/113158
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * search.cc (maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec): Defer checking
> when a noexcept couldn't be instantiated.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C: New test.
> ---
> gcc/cp/search.cc | 7 +++++
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/search.cc b/gcc/cp/search.cc
> index c948839dc53..73d254d6b84 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/search.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/search.cc
> @@ -1975,6 +1975,13 @@ maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec (tree overrider, tree basefn)
> || UNPARSED_NOEXCEPT_SPEC_P (over_throw))
> return true;
>
> + /* We also have to defer checking when we're in a template and couldn't
> + instantiate the noexcept yet.
> + ??? maybe_instantiate_noexcept already checked these. Use tristate? */
> + if (type_dependent_expression_p (base_throw)
> + || type_dependent_expression_p (over_throw))
I think we also want to avoid comparing value-dependent expressions, but
actually checking either one seems like more work than needed here; I'd
think we want to defer in a template if the specifiers aren't both
exactly true or false.
> + return true;
> +
> if (!comp_except_specs (base_throw, over_throw, ce_derived))
> {
> auto_diagnostic_group d;
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..47832bbb44d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
> +// PR c++/113158
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> +
> +template<typename T>
> +struct V {
> + static constexpr bool t = false;
> +};
> +struct base {
> + virtual int f() = 0;
> +};
> +
> +template<typename T>
> +struct derived : base {
> + int f() noexcept(V<T>::t) override;
> +};
> +
> +struct base2 {
> + virtual int f() noexcept = 0;
> +};
> +
> +template<bool B>
> +struct W {
> + static constexpr bool t = B;
> +};
> +
> +template<bool B>
> +struct derived2 : base2 {
> + int f() noexcept(W<B>::t) override; // { dg-error "looser exception specification" }
> +};
> +
> +void
> +g ()
> +{
> + derived<int> d1;
> + derived2<false> d2; // { dg-message "required from here" }
> + derived2<true> d3;
> +}
>
> base-commit: b3b3bd250f0a7c22b7d46d3522c8b94c6a35d22a
> prerequisite-patch-id: 3beddc8cae6ef7f28cd7eac7240d5f4dad08e5f7
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] c++: wrong looser excep spec for dep noexcept [PR113158]
2024-02-16 20:58 ` Jason Merrill
@ 2024-02-16 21:33 ` Marek Polacek
2024-02-16 21:39 ` Patrick Palka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Marek Polacek @ 2024-02-16 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: GCC Patches
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 03:58:02PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 2/15/24 17:17, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> >
> > By the ??? below I mean that maybe_instantiate_noexcept could return
> > a tristate, and then maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec could check
> >
> > if (maybe_instantiate_noexcept ().is_unknown ())
> > return true;
> >
> > and we don't have to add any new checks to maybe_check_o_e_spec.
> >
> > -- >8 --
> > Here we find ourselves in maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec in
> > a template context where we can't instantiate a dependent noexcept.
> > That's OK, but we have to defer the checking otherwise we give wrong
> > errors.
> >
> > PR c++/113158
> >
> > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * search.cc (maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec): Defer checking
> > when a noexcept couldn't be instantiated.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C: New test.
> > ---
> > gcc/cp/search.cc | 7 +++++
> > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/cp/search.cc b/gcc/cp/search.cc
> > index c948839dc53..73d254d6b84 100644
> > --- a/gcc/cp/search.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/cp/search.cc
> > @@ -1975,6 +1975,13 @@ maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec (tree overrider, tree basefn)
> > || UNPARSED_NOEXCEPT_SPEC_P (over_throw))
> > return true;
> > + /* We also have to defer checking when we're in a template and couldn't
> > + instantiate the noexcept yet.
> > + ??? maybe_instantiate_noexcept already checked these. Use tristate? */
> > + if (type_dependent_expression_p (base_throw)
> > + || type_dependent_expression_p (over_throw))
>
> I think we also want to avoid comparing value-dependent expressions, but
> actually checking either one seems like more work than needed here; I'd
> think we want to defer in a template if the specifiers aren't both exactly
> true or false.
Yeah, that'll work too. So like this?
Bootstrap/regtest running; dg.exp passed. FWIW, the new check only
triggered on the new test.
Thanks,
-- >8 --
Here we find ourselves in maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec in
a template context where we can't instantiate a dependent noexcept.
That's OK, but we have to defer the checking otherwise we give wrong
errors.
PR c++/113158
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* search.cc (maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec): Defer checking
when a noexcept couldn't be instantiated & evaluated to false/true.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/search.cc | 11 ++++++++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 48 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/search.cc b/gcc/cp/search.cc
index c948839dc53..554ba71f4a7 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/search.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/search.cc
@@ -1975,6 +1975,17 @@ maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec (tree overrider, tree basefn)
|| UNPARSED_NOEXCEPT_SPEC_P (over_throw))
return true;
+ /* We also have to defer checking when we're in a template and couldn't
+ instantiate & evaluate the noexcept to true/false. */
+ if (processing_template_decl)
+ if ((base_throw
+ && (base_throw != noexcept_true_spec
+ || base_throw != noexcept_false_spec))
+ || (over_throw
+ && (over_throw != noexcept_true_spec
+ || over_throw != noexcept_false_spec)))
+ return true;
+
if (!comp_except_specs (base_throw, over_throw, ce_derived))
{
auto_diagnostic_group d;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..47832bbb44d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+// PR c++/113158
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+template<typename T>
+struct V {
+ static constexpr bool t = false;
+};
+struct base {
+ virtual int f() = 0;
+};
+
+template<typename T>
+struct derived : base {
+ int f() noexcept(V<T>::t) override;
+};
+
+struct base2 {
+ virtual int f() noexcept = 0;
+};
+
+template<bool B>
+struct W {
+ static constexpr bool t = B;
+};
+
+template<bool B>
+struct derived2 : base2 {
+ int f() noexcept(W<B>::t) override; // { dg-error "looser exception specification" }
+};
+
+void
+g ()
+{
+ derived<int> d1;
+ derived2<false> d2; // { dg-message "required from here" }
+ derived2<true> d3;
+}
base-commit: 40b8d7b73ad2ce498758c1d9bd38ebdbc26b918b
--
2.43.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] c++: wrong looser excep spec for dep noexcept [PR113158]
2024-02-16 21:33 ` [PATCH v2] " Marek Polacek
@ 2024-02-16 21:39 ` Patrick Palka
2024-02-16 22:06 ` [PATCH v3] " Marek Polacek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Palka @ 2024-02-16 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marek Polacek; +Cc: Jason Merrill, GCC Patches
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 03:58:02PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 2/15/24 17:17, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> > >
> > > By the ??? below I mean that maybe_instantiate_noexcept could return
> > > a tristate, and then maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec could check
> > >
> > > if (maybe_instantiate_noexcept ().is_unknown ())
> > > return true;
> > >
> > > and we don't have to add any new checks to maybe_check_o_e_spec.
> > >
> > > -- >8 --
> > > Here we find ourselves in maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec in
> > > a template context where we can't instantiate a dependent noexcept.
> > > That's OK, but we have to defer the checking otherwise we give wrong
> > > errors.
> > >
> > > PR c++/113158
> > >
> > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > > * search.cc (maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec): Defer checking
> > > when a noexcept couldn't be instantiated.
> > >
> > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C: New test.
> > > ---
> > > gcc/cp/search.cc | 7 +++++
> > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
> > >
> > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/search.cc b/gcc/cp/search.cc
> > > index c948839dc53..73d254d6b84 100644
> > > --- a/gcc/cp/search.cc
> > > +++ b/gcc/cp/search.cc
> > > @@ -1975,6 +1975,13 @@ maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec (tree overrider, tree basefn)
> > > || UNPARSED_NOEXCEPT_SPEC_P (over_throw))
> > > return true;
> > > + /* We also have to defer checking when we're in a template and couldn't
> > > + instantiate the noexcept yet.
> > > + ??? maybe_instantiate_noexcept already checked these. Use tristate? */
> > > + if (type_dependent_expression_p (base_throw)
> > > + || type_dependent_expression_p (over_throw))
> >
> > I think we also want to avoid comparing value-dependent expressions, but
> > actually checking either one seems like more work than needed here; I'd
> > think we want to defer in a template if the specifiers aren't both exactly
> > true or false.
>
> Yeah, that'll work too. So like this?
>
> Bootstrap/regtest running; dg.exp passed. FWIW, the new check only
> triggered on the new test.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- >8 --
> Here we find ourselves in maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec in
> a template context where we can't instantiate a dependent noexcept.
> That's OK, but we have to defer the checking otherwise we give wrong
> errors.
>
> PR c++/113158
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * search.cc (maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec): Defer checking
> when a noexcept couldn't be instantiated & evaluated to false/true.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C: New test.
> ---
> gcc/cp/search.cc | 11 ++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/search.cc b/gcc/cp/search.cc
> index c948839dc53..554ba71f4a7 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/search.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/search.cc
> @@ -1975,6 +1975,17 @@ maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec (tree overrider, tree basefn)
> || UNPARSED_NOEXCEPT_SPEC_P (over_throw))
> return true;
>
> + /* We also have to defer checking when we're in a template and couldn't
> + instantiate & evaluate the noexcept to true/false. */
> + if (processing_template_decl)
> + if ((base_throw
> + && (base_throw != noexcept_true_spec
> + || base_throw != noexcept_false_spec))
Shouldn't these innermost || be &&?
> + || (over_throw
> + && (over_throw != noexcept_true_spec
> + || over_throw != noexcept_false_spec)))
> + return true;
> +
> if (!comp_except_specs (base_throw, over_throw, ce_derived))
> {
> auto_diagnostic_group d;
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..47832bbb44d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
> +// PR c++/113158
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> +
> +template<typename T>
> +struct V {
> + static constexpr bool t = false;
> +};
> +struct base {
> + virtual int f() = 0;
> +};
> +
> +template<typename T>
> +struct derived : base {
> + int f() noexcept(V<T>::t) override;
> +};
> +
> +struct base2 {
> + virtual int f() noexcept = 0;
> +};
> +
> +template<bool B>
> +struct W {
> + static constexpr bool t = B;
> +};
> +
> +template<bool B>
> +struct derived2 : base2 {
> + int f() noexcept(W<B>::t) override; // { dg-error "looser exception specification" }
> +};
> +
> +void
> +g ()
> +{
> + derived<int> d1;
> + derived2<false> d2; // { dg-message "required from here" }
> + derived2<true> d3;
> +}
>
> base-commit: 40b8d7b73ad2ce498758c1d9bd38ebdbc26b918b
> --
> 2.43.2
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3] c++: wrong looser excep spec for dep noexcept [PR113158]
2024-02-16 21:39 ` Patrick Palka
@ 2024-02-16 22:06 ` Marek Polacek
2024-02-17 10:07 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Marek Polacek @ 2024-02-16 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick Palka; +Cc: Jason Merrill, GCC Patches
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 04:39:47PM -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > + /* We also have to defer checking when we're in a template and couldn't
> > + instantiate & evaluate the noexcept to true/false. */
> > + if (processing_template_decl)
> > + if ((base_throw
> > + && (base_throw != noexcept_true_spec
> > + || base_throw != noexcept_false_spec))
>
> Shouldn't these innermost || be &&?
D'oh, yes, what a dumb mistake. But that shows that we could also just
always return true in a template ;).
Fixed. dg.exp passed so far.
-- >8 --
Here we find ourselves in maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec in
a template context where we can't instantiate a dependent noexcept.
That's OK, but we have to defer the checking otherwise we give wrong
errors.
PR c++/113158
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* search.cc (maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec): Defer checking
when a noexcept couldn't be instantiated & evaluated to false/true.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/search.cc | 11 ++++++++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 48 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/search.cc b/gcc/cp/search.cc
index c948839dc53..827f48e8604 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/search.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/search.cc
@@ -1975,6 +1975,17 @@ maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec (tree overrider, tree basefn)
|| UNPARSED_NOEXCEPT_SPEC_P (over_throw))
return true;
+ /* We also have to defer checking when we're in a template and couldn't
+ instantiate & evaluate the noexcept to true/false. */
+ if (processing_template_decl)
+ if ((base_throw
+ && base_throw != noexcept_true_spec
+ && base_throw != noexcept_false_spec)
+ || (over_throw
+ && over_throw != noexcept_true_spec
+ && over_throw != noexcept_false_spec))
+ return true;
+
if (!comp_except_specs (base_throw, over_throw, ce_derived))
{
auto_diagnostic_group d;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..47832bbb44d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+// PR c++/113158
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+template<typename T>
+struct V {
+ static constexpr bool t = false;
+};
+struct base {
+ virtual int f() = 0;
+};
+
+template<typename T>
+struct derived : base {
+ int f() noexcept(V<T>::t) override;
+};
+
+struct base2 {
+ virtual int f() noexcept = 0;
+};
+
+template<bool B>
+struct W {
+ static constexpr bool t = B;
+};
+
+template<bool B>
+struct derived2 : base2 {
+ int f() noexcept(W<B>::t) override; // { dg-error "looser exception specification" }
+};
+
+void
+g ()
+{
+ derived<int> d1;
+ derived2<false> d2; // { dg-message "required from here" }
+ derived2<true> d3;
+}
base-commit: cd503b0616462445381a8232fb753239d319af76
--
2.43.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] c++: wrong looser excep spec for dep noexcept [PR113158]
2024-02-16 22:06 ` [PATCH v3] " Marek Polacek
@ 2024-02-17 10:07 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2024-02-17 10:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marek Polacek, Patrick Palka; +Cc: GCC Patches
On 2/16/24 17:06, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 04:39:47PM -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>> + /* We also have to defer checking when we're in a template and couldn't
>>> + instantiate & evaluate the noexcept to true/false. */
>>> + if (processing_template_decl)
>>> + if ((base_throw
>>> + && (base_throw != noexcept_true_spec
>>> + || base_throw != noexcept_false_spec))
>>
>> Shouldn't these innermost || be &&?
>
> D'oh, yes, what a dumb mistake. But that shows that we could also just
> always return true in a template ;).
>
> Fixed. dg.exp passed so far.
OK.
> -- >8 --
> Here we find ourselves in maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec in
> a template context where we can't instantiate a dependent noexcept.
> That's OK, but we have to defer the checking otherwise we give wrong
> errors.
>
> PR c++/113158
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * search.cc (maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec): Defer checking
> when a noexcept couldn't be instantiated & evaluated to false/true.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C: New test.
> ---
> gcc/cp/search.cc | 11 ++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/search.cc b/gcc/cp/search.cc
> index c948839dc53..827f48e8604 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/search.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/search.cc
> @@ -1975,6 +1975,17 @@ maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec (tree overrider, tree basefn)
> || UNPARSED_NOEXCEPT_SPEC_P (over_throw))
> return true;
>
> + /* We also have to defer checking when we're in a template and couldn't
> + instantiate & evaluate the noexcept to true/false. */
> + if (processing_template_decl)
> + if ((base_throw
> + && base_throw != noexcept_true_spec
> + && base_throw != noexcept_false_spec)
> + || (over_throw
> + && over_throw != noexcept_true_spec
> + && over_throw != noexcept_false_spec))
> + return true;
> +
> if (!comp_except_specs (base_throw, over_throw, ce_derived))
> {
> auto_diagnostic_group d;
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..47832bbb44d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept83.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
> +// PR c++/113158
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> +
> +template<typename T>
> +struct V {
> + static constexpr bool t = false;
> +};
> +struct base {
> + virtual int f() = 0;
> +};
> +
> +template<typename T>
> +struct derived : base {
> + int f() noexcept(V<T>::t) override;
> +};
> +
> +struct base2 {
> + virtual int f() noexcept = 0;
> +};
> +
> +template<bool B>
> +struct W {
> + static constexpr bool t = B;
> +};
> +
> +template<bool B>
> +struct derived2 : base2 {
> + int f() noexcept(W<B>::t) override; // { dg-error "looser exception specification" }
> +};
> +
> +void
> +g ()
> +{
> + derived<int> d1;
> + derived2<false> d2; // { dg-message "required from here" }
> + derived2<true> d3;
> +}
>
> base-commit: cd503b0616462445381a8232fb753239d319af76
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-02-17 10:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-02-15 22:17 [PATCH] c++: wrong looser excep spec for dep noexcept [PR113158] Marek Polacek
2024-02-16 20:58 ` Jason Merrill
2024-02-16 21:33 ` [PATCH v2] " Marek Polacek
2024-02-16 21:39 ` Patrick Palka
2024-02-16 22:06 ` [PATCH v3] " Marek Polacek
2024-02-17 10:07 ` 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).