* [PATCH] c++: get_nsdmi in template context [PR108116]
@ 2022-12-21 14:52 Patrick Palka
2022-12-21 14:56 ` Patrick Palka
2022-12-21 21:48 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Palka @ 2022-12-21 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches; +Cc: jason, Patrick Palka
Here during ahead of time checking of C{}, we indirectly call get_nsdmi
for C::m from finish_compound_literal, which in turn calls
break_out_target_exprs for C::m's (non-templated) initializer, during
which we end up building a call to A::~A and checking expr_noexcept_p
for it (from build_vec_delete_1). But this is all done with
processing_template_decl set, so the built A::~A call is templated
(whose form r12-6897-gdec8d0e5fa00ceb2 recently changed) which
expr_noexcept_p doesn't expect and we crash.
In r10-6183-g20afdcd3698275 we fixed a similar issue by guarding a
expr_noexcept_p call with !processing_template_decl, which works here
too. But it seems to me since the initializer we obtain in get_nsdmi is
always non-templated, it should be calling break_out_target_exprs with
processing_template_decl cleared since otherwise the function might end
up mixing templated and non-templated trees.
I'm not sure about this though, perhaps this is not the best fix here.
Alternatively, when processing_template_decl we could make get_nsdmi
avoid calling break_out_target_exprs at all or something. Additionally,
perhaps break_out_target_exprs should be a no-op more generally when
processing_template_decl since we shouldn't see any TARGET_EXPRs inside
a template?
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
PR c++/108116
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* init.cc (get_nsdmi): Clear processing_template_decl before
processing the non-templated initializer.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/init.cc | 8 ++++++-
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C | 22 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.cc b/gcc/cp/init.cc
index 73e6547c076..c4345ebdaea 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/init.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc
@@ -561,7 +561,8 @@ perform_target_ctor (tree init)
return init;
}
-/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL MEMBER. */
+/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL MEMBER.
+ The initializer returned is always non-templated. */
static GTY((cache)) decl_tree_cache_map *nsdmi_inst;
@@ -670,6 +671,11 @@ get_nsdmi (tree member, bool in_ctor, tsubst_flags_t complain)
current_class_ptr = build_address (current_class_ref);
}
+ /* Since INIT is always non-templated clear processing_template_decl
+ before processing it so that we don't interleave templated and
+ non-templated trees. */
+ processing_template_decl_sentinel ptds;
+
/* Strip redundant TARGET_EXPR so we don't need to remap it, and
so the aggregate init code below will see a CONSTRUCTOR. */
bool simple_target = (init && SIMPLE_TARGET_EXPR_P (init));
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..202c67d7321
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+// PR c++/108116
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+#include <initializer_list>
+
+struct A {
+ A(int);
+ ~A();
+};
+
+struct B {
+ B(std::initializer_list<A>);
+};
+
+struct C {
+ B m{0};
+};
+
+template<class>
+void f() {
+ C c = C{};
+};
--
2.39.0.95.g7c2ef319c5
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: get_nsdmi in template context [PR108116]
2022-12-21 14:52 [PATCH] c++: get_nsdmi in template context [PR108116] Patrick Palka
@ 2022-12-21 14:56 ` Patrick Palka
2022-12-21 21:48 ` Jason Merrill
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Palka @ 2022-12-21 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick Palka; +Cc: gcc-patches, jason
On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
> Here during ahead of time checking of C{}, we indirectly call get_nsdmi
> for C::m from finish_compound_literal, which in turn calls
> break_out_target_exprs for C::m's (non-templated) initializer, during
> which we end up building a call to A::~A and checking expr_noexcept_p
> for it (from build_vec_delete_1). But this is all done with
> processing_template_decl set, so the built A::~A call is templated
> (whose form r12-6897-gdec8d0e5fa00ceb2 recently changed) which
> expr_noexcept_p doesn't expect and we crash.
>
> In r10-6183-g20afdcd3698275 we fixed a similar issue by guarding a
> expr_noexcept_p call with !processing_template_decl, which works here
> too. But it seems to me since the initializer we obtain in get_nsdmi is
> always non-templated, it should be calling break_out_target_exprs with
> processing_template_decl cleared since otherwise the function might end
> up mixing templated and non-templated trees.
>
> I'm not sure about this though, perhaps this is not the best fix here.
> Alternatively, when processing_template_decl we could make get_nsdmi
> avoid calling break_out_target_exprs at all or something. Additionally,
> perhaps break_out_target_exprs should be a no-op more generally when
> processing_template_decl since we shouldn't see any TARGET_EXPRs inside
> a template?
>
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Note this is a 12 regression so I suppose there's also the question of
what's safest to backport vs what's the best fix..
>
> PR c++/108116
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * init.cc (get_nsdmi): Clear processing_template_decl before
> processing the non-templated initializer.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C: New test.
> ---
> gcc/cp/init.cc | 8 ++++++-
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C | 22 +++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.cc b/gcc/cp/init.cc
> index 73e6547c076..c4345ebdaea 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/init.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc
> @@ -561,7 +561,8 @@ perform_target_ctor (tree init)
> return init;
> }
>
> -/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL MEMBER. */
> +/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL MEMBER.
> + The initializer returned is always non-templated. */
>
> static GTY((cache)) decl_tree_cache_map *nsdmi_inst;
>
> @@ -670,6 +671,11 @@ get_nsdmi (tree member, bool in_ctor, tsubst_flags_t complain)
> current_class_ptr = build_address (current_class_ref);
> }
>
> + /* Since INIT is always non-templated clear processing_template_decl
> + before processing it so that we don't interleave templated and
> + non-templated trees. */
> + processing_template_decl_sentinel ptds;
> +
> /* Strip redundant TARGET_EXPR so we don't need to remap it, and
> so the aggregate init code below will see a CONSTRUCTOR. */
> bool simple_target = (init && SIMPLE_TARGET_EXPR_P (init));
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..202c67d7321
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> +// PR c++/108116
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> +
> +#include <initializer_list>
> +
> +struct A {
> + A(int);
> + ~A();
> +};
> +
> +struct B {
> + B(std::initializer_list<A>);
> +};
> +
> +struct C {
> + B m{0};
> +};
> +
> +template<class>
> +void f() {
> + C c = C{};
> +};
> --
> 2.39.0.95.g7c2ef319c5
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: get_nsdmi in template context [PR108116]
2022-12-21 14:52 [PATCH] c++: get_nsdmi in template context [PR108116] Patrick Palka
2022-12-21 14:56 ` Patrick Palka
@ 2022-12-21 21:48 ` Jason Merrill
2022-12-22 16:31 ` Patrick Palka
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2022-12-21 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick Palka, gcc-patches
On 12/21/22 09:52, Patrick Palka wrote:
> Here during ahead of time checking of C{}, we indirectly call get_nsdmi
> for C::m from finish_compound_literal, which in turn calls
> break_out_target_exprs for C::m's (non-templated) initializer, during
> which we end up building a call to A::~A and checking expr_noexcept_p
> for it (from build_vec_delete_1). But this is all done with
> processing_template_decl set, so the built A::~A call is templated
> (whose form r12-6897-gdec8d0e5fa00ceb2 recently changed) which
> expr_noexcept_p doesn't expect and we crash.
>
> In r10-6183-g20afdcd3698275 we fixed a similar issue by guarding a
> expr_noexcept_p call with !processing_template_decl, which works here
> too. But it seems to me since the initializer we obtain in get_nsdmi is
> always non-templated, it should be calling break_out_target_exprs with
> processing_template_decl cleared since otherwise the function might end
> up mixing templated and non-templated trees.
>
> I'm not sure about this though, perhaps this is not the best fix here.
> Alternatively, when processing_template_decl we could make get_nsdmi
> avoid calling break_out_target_exprs at all or something. Additionally,
> perhaps break_out_target_exprs should be a no-op more generally when
> processing_template_decl since we shouldn't see any TARGET_EXPRs inside
> a template?
Hmm.
Any time we would call break_out_target_exprs we're dealing with
non-dependent expressions; if we're in a template, we're building up an
initializer or a call that we'll soon throw away, just for the purpose
of checking or type computation.
Furthermore, as you say, the argument is always a non-template tree,
whether in get_nsdmi or convert_default_arg. So having
processing_template_decl cleared would be correct.
I don't think we can get away with not calling break_out_target_exprs at
all in a template; if nothing else, we would lose immediate invocation
expansion. However, we could probably skip the bot_manip tree walk,
which should avoid the problem.
Either way we end up returning non-template trees, as we do now, and
callers have to deal with transient CONSTRUCTORs containing such (as we
do in massage_init_elt).
Does convert_default_arg not run into the same problem, e.g. when calling
void g(B = {0});
?
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> PR c++/108116
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * init.cc (get_nsdmi): Clear processing_template_decl before
> processing the non-templated initializer.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C: New test.
> ---
> gcc/cp/init.cc | 8 ++++++-
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C | 22 +++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.cc b/gcc/cp/init.cc
> index 73e6547c076..c4345ebdaea 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/init.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc
> @@ -561,7 +561,8 @@ perform_target_ctor (tree init)
> return init;
> }
>
> -/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL MEMBER. */
> +/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL MEMBER.
> + The initializer returned is always non-templated. */
>
> static GTY((cache)) decl_tree_cache_map *nsdmi_inst;
>
> @@ -670,6 +671,11 @@ get_nsdmi (tree member, bool in_ctor, tsubst_flags_t complain)
> current_class_ptr = build_address (current_class_ref);
> }
>
> + /* Since INIT is always non-templated clear processing_template_decl
> + before processing it so that we don't interleave templated and
> + non-templated trees. */
> + processing_template_decl_sentinel ptds;
> +
> /* Strip redundant TARGET_EXPR so we don't need to remap it, and
> so the aggregate init code below will see a CONSTRUCTOR. */
> bool simple_target = (init && SIMPLE_TARGET_EXPR_P (init));
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..202c67d7321
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> +// PR c++/108116
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> +
> +#include <initializer_list>
> +
> +struct A {
> + A(int);
> + ~A();
> +};
> +
> +struct B {
> + B(std::initializer_list<A>);
> +};
> +
> +struct C {
> + B m{0};
> +};
> +
> +template<class>
> +void f() {
> + C c = C{};
> +};
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: get_nsdmi in template context [PR108116]
2022-12-21 21:48 ` Jason Merrill
@ 2022-12-22 16:31 ` Patrick Palka
2022-12-22 21:33 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Palka @ 2022-12-22 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: Patrick Palka, gcc-patches
On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/21/22 09:52, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > Here during ahead of time checking of C{}, we indirectly call get_nsdmi
> > for C::m from finish_compound_literal, which in turn calls
> > break_out_target_exprs for C::m's (non-templated) initializer, during
> > which we end up building a call to A::~A and checking expr_noexcept_p
> > for it (from build_vec_delete_1). But this is all done with
> > processing_template_decl set, so the built A::~A call is templated
> > (whose form r12-6897-gdec8d0e5fa00ceb2 recently changed) which
> > expr_noexcept_p doesn't expect and we crash.
> >
> > In r10-6183-g20afdcd3698275 we fixed a similar issue by guarding a
> > expr_noexcept_p call with !processing_template_decl, which works here
> > too. But it seems to me since the initializer we obtain in get_nsdmi is
> > always non-templated, it should be calling break_out_target_exprs with
> > processing_template_decl cleared since otherwise the function might end
> > up mixing templated and non-templated trees.
> >
> > I'm not sure about this though, perhaps this is not the best fix here.
> > Alternatively, when processing_template_decl we could make get_nsdmi
> > avoid calling break_out_target_exprs at all or something. Additionally,
> > perhaps break_out_target_exprs should be a no-op more generally when
> > processing_template_decl since we shouldn't see any TARGET_EXPRs inside
> > a template?
>
> Hmm.
>
> Any time we would call break_out_target_exprs we're dealing with non-dependent
> expressions; if we're in a template, we're building up an initializer or a
> call that we'll soon throw away, just for the purpose of checking or type
> computation.
>
> Furthermore, as you say, the argument is always a non-template tree, whether
> in get_nsdmi or convert_default_arg. So having processing_template_decl
> cleared would be correct.
>
> I don't think we can get away with not calling break_out_target_exprs at all
> in a template; if nothing else, we would lose immediate invocation expansion.
> However, we could probably skip the bot_manip tree walk, which should avoid
> the problem.
>
> Either way we end up returning non-template trees, as we do now, and callers
> have to deal with transient CONSTRUCTORs containing such (as we do in
> massage_init_elt).
Ah I see, makes sense.
>
> Does convert_default_arg not run into the same problem, e.g. when calling
>
> void g(B = {0});
In practice it seems not, because we don't call convert_default_arg
when processing_template_decl is set (verified with an assert to
that effect). In build_over_call for example we exit early when
processing_template_decl is set, and return a templated CALL_EXPR
that doesn't include default arguments at all. A consequence of
this is that we don't reject ahead of time a call that would use
an ill-formed dependent default argument, e.g.
template<class T>
void g(B = T{0});
template<class>
void f() {
g<void>();
}
since the default argument instantiation would be the responsibility
of convert_default_arg.
Thinking hypothetically here, if we do in the future want to include default
arguments in the templated form of a CALL_EXPR, we'd probably have to
instantiate them with processing_template_decl set so that the result is
templated. And we'd subsequently want to call break_out_target_exprs on
the result also with processing_template_decl set IIUC, to perform
immediate invocation expansion. This seems to be a potential use case
for being able to call break_out_target_exprs on templated trees, and so
unconditionally clearing p_t_d from break_out_target_exprs might not be
future proof.
In light of this, shall we go with the original approach to clear
processing_template_decl directly from get_nsdmi?
>
> ?
>
> > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> >
> > PR c++/108116
> >
> > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * init.cc (get_nsdmi): Clear processing_template_decl before
> > processing the non-templated initializer.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> > * g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C: New test.
> > ---
> > gcc/cp/init.cc | 8 ++++++-
> > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C | 22 +++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.cc b/gcc/cp/init.cc
> > index 73e6547c076..c4345ebdaea 100644
> > --- a/gcc/cp/init.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc
> > @@ -561,7 +561,8 @@ perform_target_ctor (tree init)
> > return init;
> > }
> > -/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL MEMBER. */
> > +/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL MEMBER.
> > + The initializer returned is always non-templated. */
> > static GTY((cache)) decl_tree_cache_map *nsdmi_inst;
> > @@ -670,6 +671,11 @@ get_nsdmi (tree member, bool in_ctor, tsubst_flags_t
> > complain)
> > current_class_ptr = build_address (current_class_ref);
> > }
> > + /* Since INIT is always non-templated clear processing_template_decl
> > + before processing it so that we don't interleave templated and
> > + non-templated trees. */
> > + processing_template_decl_sentinel ptds;
> > +
> > /* Strip redundant TARGET_EXPR so we don't need to remap it, and
> > so the aggregate init code below will see a CONSTRUCTOR. */
> > bool simple_target = (init && SIMPLE_TARGET_EXPR_P (init));
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..202c67d7321
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> > @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> > +// PR c++/108116
> > +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> > +
> > +#include <initializer_list>
> > +
> > +struct A {
> > + A(int);
> > + ~A();
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct B {
> > + B(std::initializer_list<A>);
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct C {
> > + B m{0};
> > +};
> > +
> > +template<class>
> > +void f() {
> > + C c = C{};
> > +};
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: get_nsdmi in template context [PR108116]
2022-12-22 16:31 ` Patrick Palka
@ 2022-12-22 21:33 ` Jason Merrill
2022-12-22 21:41 ` Patrick Palka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2022-12-22 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick Palka; +Cc: gcc-patches
On 12/22/22 11:31, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
>> On 12/21/22 09:52, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>> Here during ahead of time checking of C{}, we indirectly call get_nsdmi
>>> for C::m from finish_compound_literal, which in turn calls
>>> break_out_target_exprs for C::m's (non-templated) initializer, during
>>> which we end up building a call to A::~A and checking expr_noexcept_p
>>> for it (from build_vec_delete_1). But this is all done with
>>> processing_template_decl set, so the built A::~A call is templated
>>> (whose form r12-6897-gdec8d0e5fa00ceb2 recently changed) which
>>> expr_noexcept_p doesn't expect and we crash.
>>>
>>> In r10-6183-g20afdcd3698275 we fixed a similar issue by guarding a
>>> expr_noexcept_p call with !processing_template_decl, which works here
>>> too. But it seems to me since the initializer we obtain in get_nsdmi is
>>> always non-templated, it should be calling break_out_target_exprs with
>>> processing_template_decl cleared since otherwise the function might end
>>> up mixing templated and non-templated trees.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure about this though, perhaps this is not the best fix here.
>>> Alternatively, when processing_template_decl we could make get_nsdmi
>>> avoid calling break_out_target_exprs at all or something. Additionally,
>>> perhaps break_out_target_exprs should be a no-op more generally when
>>> processing_template_decl since we shouldn't see any TARGET_EXPRs inside
>>> a template?
>>
>> Hmm.
>>
>> Any time we would call break_out_target_exprs we're dealing with non-dependent
>> expressions; if we're in a template, we're building up an initializer or a
>> call that we'll soon throw away, just for the purpose of checking or type
>> computation.
>>
>> Furthermore, as you say, the argument is always a non-template tree, whether
>> in get_nsdmi or convert_default_arg. So having processing_template_decl
>> cleared would be correct.
>>
>> I don't think we can get away with not calling break_out_target_exprs at all
>> in a template; if nothing else, we would lose immediate invocation expansion.
>> However, we could probably skip the bot_manip tree walk, which should avoid
>> the problem.
>>
>> Either way we end up returning non-template trees, as we do now, and callers
>> have to deal with transient CONSTRUCTORs containing such (as we do in
>> massage_init_elt).
>
> Ah I see, makes sense.
>
>>
>> Does convert_default_arg not run into the same problem, e.g. when calling
>>
>> void g(B = {0});
>
> In practice it seems not, because we don't call convert_default_arg
> when processing_template_decl is set (verified with an assert to
> that effect). In build_over_call for example we exit early when
> processing_template_decl is set, and return a templated CALL_EXPR
> that doesn't include default arguments at all. A consequence of
> this is that we don't reject ahead of time a call that would use
> an ill-formed dependent default argument, e.g.
>
> template<class T>
> void g(B = T{0});
>
> template<class>
> void f() {
> g<void>();
> }
>
> since the default argument instantiation would be the responsibility
> of convert_default_arg.
>
> Thinking hypothetically here, if we do in the future want to include default
> arguments in the templated form of a CALL_EXPR,
We definitely do not want to; the templated form should be as close as
possible to the source.
We might want to perform non-dependent conversions to get any errors
(such as this one) before throwing away the result. Which would be
parallel to what we currently do in calling get_nsdmi, and would want
the same behavior.
> [snip]
> shall we go with the original approach to clear
> processing_template_decl directly from get_nsdmi?
OK, but then we should also checking_assert !processing_template_decl in
b_o_t_e.
Jason
>> ?
>>
>>> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>>>
>>> PR c++/108116
>>>
>>> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> * init.cc (get_nsdmi): Clear processing_template_decl before
>>> processing the non-templated initializer.
>>>
>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> * g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C: New test.
>>> ---
>>> gcc/cp/init.cc | 8 ++++++-
>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C | 22 +++++++++++++++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.cc b/gcc/cp/init.cc
>>> index 73e6547c076..c4345ebdaea 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/cp/init.cc
>>> +++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc
>>> @@ -561,7 +561,8 @@ perform_target_ctor (tree init)
>>> return init;
>>> }
>>> -/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL MEMBER. */
>>> +/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL MEMBER.
>>> + The initializer returned is always non-templated. */
>>> static GTY((cache)) decl_tree_cache_map *nsdmi_inst;
>>> @@ -670,6 +671,11 @@ get_nsdmi (tree member, bool in_ctor, tsubst_flags_t
>>> complain)
>>> current_class_ptr = build_address (current_class_ref);
>>> }
>>> + /* Since INIT is always non-templated clear processing_template_decl
>>> + before processing it so that we don't interleave templated and
>>> + non-templated trees. */
>>> + processing_template_decl_sentinel ptds;
>>> +
>>> /* Strip redundant TARGET_EXPR so we don't need to remap it, and
>>> so the aggregate init code below will see a CONSTRUCTOR. */
>>> bool simple_target = (init && SIMPLE_TARGET_EXPR_P (init));
>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
>>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 00000000000..202c67d7321
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
>>> +// PR c++/108116
>>> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
>>> +
>>> +#include <initializer_list>
>>> +
>>> +struct A {
>>> + A(int);
>>> + ~A();
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +struct B {
>>> + B(std::initializer_list<A>);
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +struct C {
>>> + B m{0};
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +template<class>
>>> +void f() {
>>> + C c = C{};
>>> +};
>>
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: get_nsdmi in template context [PR108116]
2022-12-22 21:33 ` Jason Merrill
@ 2022-12-22 21:41 ` Patrick Palka
2022-12-22 22:03 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Palka @ 2022-12-22 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: Patrick Palka, gcc-patches
On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/22/22 11:31, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/21/22 09:52, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > Here during ahead of time checking of C{}, we indirectly call get_nsdmi
> > > > for C::m from finish_compound_literal, which in turn calls
> > > > break_out_target_exprs for C::m's (non-templated) initializer, during
> > > > which we end up building a call to A::~A and checking expr_noexcept_p
> > > > for it (from build_vec_delete_1). But this is all done with
> > > > processing_template_decl set, so the built A::~A call is templated
> > > > (whose form r12-6897-gdec8d0e5fa00ceb2 recently changed) which
> > > > expr_noexcept_p doesn't expect and we crash.
> > > >
> > > > In r10-6183-g20afdcd3698275 we fixed a similar issue by guarding a
> > > > expr_noexcept_p call with !processing_template_decl, which works here
> > > > too. But it seems to me since the initializer we obtain in get_nsdmi is
> > > > always non-templated, it should be calling break_out_target_exprs with
> > > > processing_template_decl cleared since otherwise the function might end
> > > > up mixing templated and non-templated trees.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure about this though, perhaps this is not the best fix here.
> > > > Alternatively, when processing_template_decl we could make get_nsdmi
> > > > avoid calling break_out_target_exprs at all or something. Additionally,
> > > > perhaps break_out_target_exprs should be a no-op more generally when
> > > > processing_template_decl since we shouldn't see any TARGET_EXPRs inside
> > > > a template?
> > >
> > > Hmm.
> > >
> > > Any time we would call break_out_target_exprs we're dealing with
> > > non-dependent
> > > expressions; if we're in a template, we're building up an initializer or a
> > > call that we'll soon throw away, just for the purpose of checking or type
> > > computation.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, as you say, the argument is always a non-template tree,
> > > whether
> > > in get_nsdmi or convert_default_arg. So having processing_template_decl
> > > cleared would be correct.
> > >
> > > I don't think we can get away with not calling break_out_target_exprs at
> > > all
> > > in a template; if nothing else, we would lose immediate invocation
> > > expansion.
> > > However, we could probably skip the bot_manip tree walk, which should
> > > avoid
> > > the problem.
> > >
> > > Either way we end up returning non-template trees, as we do now, and
> > > callers
> > > have to deal with transient CONSTRUCTORs containing such (as we do in
> > > massage_init_elt).
> >
> > Ah I see, makes sense.
> >
> > >
> > > Does convert_default_arg not run into the same problem, e.g. when calling
> > >
> > > void g(B = {0});
> >
> > In practice it seems not, because we don't call convert_default_arg
> > when processing_template_decl is set (verified with an assert to
> > that effect). In build_over_call for example we exit early when
> > processing_template_decl is set, and return a templated CALL_EXPR
> > that doesn't include default arguments at all. A consequence of
> > this is that we don't reject ahead of time a call that would use
> > an ill-formed dependent default argument, e.g.
> >
> > template<class T>
> > void g(B = T{0});
> >
> > template<class>
> > void f() {
> > g<void>();
> > }
> >
> > since the default argument instantiation would be the responsibility
> > of convert_default_arg.
> >
> > Thinking hypothetically here, if we do in the future want to include default
> > arguments in the templated form of a CALL_EXPR,
>
> We definitely do not want to; the templated form should be as close as
> possible to the source.
Ah, sounds good.
>
> We might want to perform non-dependent conversions to get any errors (such as
> this one) before throwing away the result. Which would be parallel to what we
> currently do in calling get_nsdmi, and would want the same behavior.
*nod*
>
> > [snip]
>
> > shall we go with the original approach to clear
> > processing_template_decl directly from get_nsdmi?
>
> OK, but then we should also checking_assert !processing_template_decl in
> b_o_t_e.
Unfortunately we'd trigger that assert from maybe_constant_value, which
potentially calls b_o_t_e with processing_template_decl set.
>
> Jason
>
> > > ?
> > >
> > > > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> > > >
> > > > PR c++/108116
> > > >
> > > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> > > >
> > > > * init.cc (get_nsdmi): Clear processing_template_decl before
> > > > processing the non-templated initializer.
> > > >
> > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > > >
> > > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C: New test.
> > > > ---
> > > > gcc/cp/init.cc | 8 ++++++-
> > > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C | 22
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.cc b/gcc/cp/init.cc
> > > > index 73e6547c076..c4345ebdaea 100644
> > > > --- a/gcc/cp/init.cc
> > > > +++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc
> > > > @@ -561,7 +561,8 @@ perform_target_ctor (tree init)
> > > > return init;
> > > > }
> > > > -/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL MEMBER. */
> > > > +/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL MEMBER.
> > > > + The initializer returned is always non-templated. */
> > > > static GTY((cache)) decl_tree_cache_map *nsdmi_inst;
> > > > @@ -670,6 +671,11 @@ get_nsdmi (tree member, bool in_ctor,
> > > > tsubst_flags_t
> > > > complain)
> > > > current_class_ptr = build_address (current_class_ref);
> > > > }
> > > > + /* Since INIT is always non-templated clear
> > > > processing_template_decl
> > > > + before processing it so that we don't interleave templated and
> > > > + non-templated trees. */
> > > > + processing_template_decl_sentinel ptds;
> > > > +
> > > > /* Strip redundant TARGET_EXPR so we don't need to remap it, and
> > > > so the aggregate init code below will see a CONSTRUCTOR. */
> > > > bool simple_target = (init && SIMPLE_TARGET_EXPR_P (init));
> > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> > > > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 00000000000..202c67d7321
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> > > > +// PR c++/108116
> > > > +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <initializer_list>
> > > > +
> > > > +struct A {
> > > > + A(int);
> > > > + ~A();
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +struct B {
> > > > + B(std::initializer_list<A>);
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +struct C {
> > > > + B m{0};
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +template<class>
> > > > +void f() {
> > > > + C c = C{};
> > > > +};
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: get_nsdmi in template context [PR108116]
2022-12-22 21:41 ` Patrick Palka
@ 2022-12-22 22:03 ` Jason Merrill
2022-12-22 22:41 ` Patrick Palka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2022-12-22 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick Palka; +Cc: gcc-patches
On 12/22/22 16:41, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
>> On 12/22/22 11:31, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/21/22 09:52, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>>>> Here during ahead of time checking of C{}, we indirectly call get_nsdmi
>>>>> for C::m from finish_compound_literal, which in turn calls
>>>>> break_out_target_exprs for C::m's (non-templated) initializer, during
>>>>> which we end up building a call to A::~A and checking expr_noexcept_p
>>>>> for it (from build_vec_delete_1). But this is all done with
>>>>> processing_template_decl set, so the built A::~A call is templated
>>>>> (whose form r12-6897-gdec8d0e5fa00ceb2 recently changed) which
>>>>> expr_noexcept_p doesn't expect and we crash.
>>>>>
>>>>> In r10-6183-g20afdcd3698275 we fixed a similar issue by guarding a
>>>>> expr_noexcept_p call with !processing_template_decl, which works here
>>>>> too. But it seems to me since the initializer we obtain in get_nsdmi is
>>>>> always non-templated, it should be calling break_out_target_exprs with
>>>>> processing_template_decl cleared since otherwise the function might end
>>>>> up mixing templated and non-templated trees.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure about this though, perhaps this is not the best fix here.
>>>>> Alternatively, when processing_template_decl we could make get_nsdmi
>>>>> avoid calling break_out_target_exprs at all or something. Additionally,
>>>>> perhaps break_out_target_exprs should be a no-op more generally when
>>>>> processing_template_decl since we shouldn't see any TARGET_EXPRs inside
>>>>> a template?
>>>>
>>>> Hmm.
>>>>
>>>> Any time we would call break_out_target_exprs we're dealing with
>>>> non-dependent
>>>> expressions; if we're in a template, we're building up an initializer or a
>>>> call that we'll soon throw away, just for the purpose of checking or type
>>>> computation.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, as you say, the argument is always a non-template tree,
>>>> whether
>>>> in get_nsdmi or convert_default_arg. So having processing_template_decl
>>>> cleared would be correct.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we can get away with not calling break_out_target_exprs at
>>>> all
>>>> in a template; if nothing else, we would lose immediate invocation
>>>> expansion.
>>>> However, we could probably skip the bot_manip tree walk, which should
>>>> avoid
>>>> the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Either way we end up returning non-template trees, as we do now, and
>>>> callers
>>>> have to deal with transient CONSTRUCTORs containing such (as we do in
>>>> massage_init_elt).
>>>
>>> Ah I see, makes sense.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does convert_default_arg not run into the same problem, e.g. when calling
>>>>
>>>> void g(B = {0});
>>>
>>> In practice it seems not, because we don't call convert_default_arg
>>> when processing_template_decl is set (verified with an assert to
>>> that effect). In build_over_call for example we exit early when
>>> processing_template_decl is set, and return a templated CALL_EXPR
>>> that doesn't include default arguments at all. A consequence of
>>> this is that we don't reject ahead of time a call that would use
>>> an ill-formed dependent default argument, e.g.
>>>
>>> template<class T>
>>> void g(B = T{0});
>>>
>>> template<class>
>>> void f() {
>>> g<void>();
>>> }
>>>
>>> since the default argument instantiation would be the responsibility
>>> of convert_default_arg.
>>>
>>> Thinking hypothetically here, if we do in the future want to include default
>>> arguments in the templated form of a CALL_EXPR,
>>
>> We definitely do not want to; the templated form should be as close as
>> possible to the source.
>
> Ah, sounds good.
>
>>
>> We might want to perform non-dependent conversions to get any errors (such as
>> this one) before throwing away the result. Which would be parallel to what we
>> currently do in calling get_nsdmi, and would want the same behavior.
>
> *nod*
>
>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>>> shall we go with the original approach to clear
>>> processing_template_decl directly from get_nsdmi?
>>
>> OK, but then we should also checking_assert !processing_template_decl in
>> b_o_t_e.
>
> Unfortunately we'd trigger that assert from maybe_constant_value, which
> potentially calls b_o_t_e with processing_template_decl set.
maybe_constant_value could also clear processing_template_decl; entries
in cv_cache are non-templated.
>>>>> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>>>>>
>>>>> PR c++/108116
>>>>>
>>>>> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>>>>>
>>>>> * init.cc (get_nsdmi): Clear processing_template_decl before
>>>>> processing the non-templated initializer.
>>>>>
>>>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>>>
>>>>> * g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C: New test.
>>>>> ---
>>>>> gcc/cp/init.cc | 8 ++++++-
>>>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C | 22
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.cc b/gcc/cp/init.cc
>>>>> index 73e6547c076..c4345ebdaea 100644
>>>>> --- a/gcc/cp/init.cc
>>>>> +++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc
>>>>> @@ -561,7 +561,8 @@ perform_target_ctor (tree init)
>>>>> return init;
>>>>> }
>>>>> -/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL MEMBER. */
>>>>> +/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL MEMBER.
>>>>> + The initializer returned is always non-templated. */
>>>>> static GTY((cache)) decl_tree_cache_map *nsdmi_inst;
>>>>> @@ -670,6 +671,11 @@ get_nsdmi (tree member, bool in_ctor,
>>>>> tsubst_flags_t
>>>>> complain)
>>>>> current_class_ptr = build_address (current_class_ref);
>>>>> }
>>>>> + /* Since INIT is always non-templated clear
>>>>> processing_template_decl
>>>>> + before processing it so that we don't interleave templated and
>>>>> + non-templated trees. */
>>>>> + processing_template_decl_sentinel ptds;
>>>>> +
>>>>> /* Strip redundant TARGET_EXPR so we don't need to remap it, and
>>>>> so the aggregate init code below will see a CONSTRUCTOR. */
>>>>> bool simple_target = (init && SIMPLE_TARGET_EXPR_P (init));
>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
>>>>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 00000000000..202c67d7321
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
>>>>> +// PR c++/108116
>>>>> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#include <initializer_list>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +struct A {
>>>>> + A(int);
>>>>> + ~A();
>>>>> +};
>>>>> +
>>>>> +struct B {
>>>>> + B(std::initializer_list<A>);
>>>>> +};
>>>>> +
>>>>> +struct C {
>>>>> + B m{0};
>>>>> +};
>>>>> +
>>>>> +template<class>
>>>>> +void f() {
>>>>> + C c = C{};
>>>>> +};
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: get_nsdmi in template context [PR108116]
2022-12-22 22:03 ` Jason Merrill
@ 2022-12-22 22:41 ` Patrick Palka
2022-12-23 15:48 ` Patrick Palka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Palka @ 2022-12-22 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: Patrick Palka, gcc-patches
On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/22/22 16:41, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/22/22 11:31, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 12/21/22 09:52, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > > > Here during ahead of time checking of C{}, we indirectly call
> > > > > > get_nsdmi
> > > > > > for C::m from finish_compound_literal, which in turn calls
> > > > > > break_out_target_exprs for C::m's (non-templated) initializer,
> > > > > > during
> > > > > > which we end up building a call to A::~A and checking
> > > > > > expr_noexcept_p
> > > > > > for it (from build_vec_delete_1). But this is all done with
> > > > > > processing_template_decl set, so the built A::~A call is templated
> > > > > > (whose form r12-6897-gdec8d0e5fa00ceb2 recently changed) which
> > > > > > expr_noexcept_p doesn't expect and we crash.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In r10-6183-g20afdcd3698275 we fixed a similar issue by guarding a
> > > > > > expr_noexcept_p call with !processing_template_decl, which works
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > too. But it seems to me since the initializer we obtain in
> > > > > > get_nsdmi is
> > > > > > always non-templated, it should be calling break_out_target_exprs
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > processing_template_decl cleared since otherwise the function might
> > > > > > end
> > > > > > up mixing templated and non-templated trees.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure about this though, perhaps this is not the best fix
> > > > > > here.
> > > > > > Alternatively, when processing_template_decl we could make get_nsdmi
> > > > > > avoid calling break_out_target_exprs at all or something.
> > > > > > Additionally,
> > > > > > perhaps break_out_target_exprs should be a no-op more generally when
> > > > > > processing_template_decl since we shouldn't see any TARGET_EXPRs
> > > > > > inside
> > > > > > a template?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any time we would call break_out_target_exprs we're dealing with
> > > > > non-dependent
> > > > > expressions; if we're in a template, we're building up an initializer
> > > > > or a
> > > > > call that we'll soon throw away, just for the purpose of checking or
> > > > > type
> > > > > computation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Furthermore, as you say, the argument is always a non-template tree,
> > > > > whether
> > > > > in get_nsdmi or convert_default_arg. So having
> > > > > processing_template_decl
> > > > > cleared would be correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think we can get away with not calling break_out_target_exprs
> > > > > at
> > > > > all
> > > > > in a template; if nothing else, we would lose immediate invocation
> > > > > expansion.
> > > > > However, we could probably skip the bot_manip tree walk, which should
> > > > > avoid
> > > > > the problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Either way we end up returning non-template trees, as we do now, and
> > > > > callers
> > > > > have to deal with transient CONSTRUCTORs containing such (as we do in
> > > > > massage_init_elt).
> > > >
> > > > Ah I see, makes sense.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Does convert_default_arg not run into the same problem, e.g. when
> > > > > calling
> > > > >
> > > > > void g(B = {0});
> > > >
> > > > In practice it seems not, because we don't call convert_default_arg
> > > > when processing_template_decl is set (verified with an assert to
> > > > that effect). In build_over_call for example we exit early when
> > > > processing_template_decl is set, and return a templated CALL_EXPR
> > > > that doesn't include default arguments at all. A consequence of
> > > > this is that we don't reject ahead of time a call that would use
> > > > an ill-formed dependent default argument, e.g.
> > > >
> > > > template<class T>
> > > > void g(B = T{0});
> > > >
> > > > template<class>
> > > > void f() {
> > > > g<void>();
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > since the default argument instantiation would be the responsibility
> > > > of convert_default_arg.
> > > >
> > > > Thinking hypothetically here, if we do in the future want to include
> > > > default
> > > > arguments in the templated form of a CALL_EXPR,
> > >
> > > We definitely do not want to; the templated form should be as close as
> > > possible to the source.
> >
> > Ah, sounds good.
> >
> > >
> > > We might want to perform non-dependent conversions to get any errors (such
> > > as
> > > this one) before throwing away the result. Which would be parallel to
> > > what we
> > > currently do in calling get_nsdmi, and would want the same behavior.
> >
> > *nod*
> >
> > >
> > > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > shall we go with the original approach to clear
> > > > processing_template_decl directly from get_nsdmi?
> > >
> > > OK, but then we should also checking_assert !processing_template_decl in
> > > b_o_t_e.
> >
> > Unfortunately we'd trigger that assert from maybe_constant_value, which
> > potentially calls b_o_t_e with processing_template_decl set.
>
> maybe_constant_value could also clear processing_template_decl; entries in
> cv_cache are non-templated.
Aha! I'll try that.
>
> > > > > > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PR c++/108116
> > > > > >
> > > > > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * init.cc (get_nsdmi): Clear processing_template_decl before
> > > > > > processing the non-templated initializer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C: New test.
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > gcc/cp/init.cc | 8 ++++++-
> > > > > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C | 22
> > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.cc b/gcc/cp/init.cc
> > > > > > index 73e6547c076..c4345ebdaea 100644
> > > > > > --- a/gcc/cp/init.cc
> > > > > > +++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc
> > > > > > @@ -561,7 +561,8 @@ perform_target_ctor (tree init)
> > > > > > return init;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > -/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL
> > > > > > MEMBER. */
> > > > > > +/* Return the non-static data initializer for FIELD_DECL MEMBER.
> > > > > > + The initializer returned is always non-templated. */
> > > > > > static GTY((cache)) decl_tree_cache_map *nsdmi_inst;
> > > > > > @@ -670,6 +671,11 @@ get_nsdmi (tree member, bool in_ctor,
> > > > > > tsubst_flags_t
> > > > > > complain)
> > > > > > current_class_ptr = build_address (current_class_ref);
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > + /* Since INIT is always non-templated clear
> > > > > > processing_template_decl
> > > > > > + before processing it so that we don't interleave templated and
> > > > > > + non-templated trees. */
> > > > > > + processing_template_decl_sentinel ptds;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > /* Strip redundant TARGET_EXPR so we don't need to remap it,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > so the aggregate init code below will see a CONSTRUCTOR.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > bool simple_target = (init && SIMPLE_TARGET_EXPR_P (init));
> > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> > > > > > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > index 00000000000..202c67d7321
> > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> > > > > > +// PR c++/108116
> > > > > > +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +#include <initializer_list>
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +struct A {
> > > > > > + A(int);
> > > > > > + ~A();
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +struct B {
> > > > > > + B(std::initializer_list<A>);
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +struct C {
> > > > > > + B m{0};
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +template<class>
> > > > > > +void f() {
> > > > > > + C c = C{};
> > > > > > +};
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: get_nsdmi in template context [PR108116]
2022-12-22 22:41 ` Patrick Palka
@ 2022-12-23 15:48 ` Patrick Palka
2022-12-23 16:04 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Palka @ 2022-12-23 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick Palka; +Cc: Jason Merrill, gcc-patches
On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > On 12/22/22 16:41, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 12/22/22 11:31, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/21/22 09:52, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > > > > Here during ahead of time checking of C{}, we indirectly call
> > > > > > > get_nsdmi
> > > > > > > for C::m from finish_compound_literal, which in turn calls
> > > > > > > break_out_target_exprs for C::m's (non-templated) initializer,
> > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > which we end up building a call to A::~A and checking
> > > > > > > expr_noexcept_p
> > > > > > > for it (from build_vec_delete_1). But this is all done with
> > > > > > > processing_template_decl set, so the built A::~A call is templated
> > > > > > > (whose form r12-6897-gdec8d0e5fa00ceb2 recently changed) which
> > > > > > > expr_noexcept_p doesn't expect and we crash.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In r10-6183-g20afdcd3698275 we fixed a similar issue by guarding a
> > > > > > > expr_noexcept_p call with !processing_template_decl, which works
> > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > too. But it seems to me since the initializer we obtain in
> > > > > > > get_nsdmi is
> > > > > > > always non-templated, it should be calling break_out_target_exprs
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > processing_template_decl cleared since otherwise the function might
> > > > > > > end
> > > > > > > up mixing templated and non-templated trees.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not sure about this though, perhaps this is not the best fix
> > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > Alternatively, when processing_template_decl we could make get_nsdmi
> > > > > > > avoid calling break_out_target_exprs at all or something.
> > > > > > > Additionally,
> > > > > > > perhaps break_out_target_exprs should be a no-op more generally when
> > > > > > > processing_template_decl since we shouldn't see any TARGET_EXPRs
> > > > > > > inside
> > > > > > > a template?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any time we would call break_out_target_exprs we're dealing with
> > > > > > non-dependent
> > > > > > expressions; if we're in a template, we're building up an initializer
> > > > > > or a
> > > > > > call that we'll soon throw away, just for the purpose of checking or
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > computation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Furthermore, as you say, the argument is always a non-template tree,
> > > > > > whether
> > > > > > in get_nsdmi or convert_default_arg. So having
> > > > > > processing_template_decl
> > > > > > cleared would be correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think we can get away with not calling break_out_target_exprs
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > in a template; if nothing else, we would lose immediate invocation
> > > > > > expansion.
> > > > > > However, we could probably skip the bot_manip tree walk, which should
> > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > the problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Either way we end up returning non-template trees, as we do now, and
> > > > > > callers
> > > > > > have to deal with transient CONSTRUCTORs containing such (as we do in
> > > > > > massage_init_elt).
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah I see, makes sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does convert_default_arg not run into the same problem, e.g. when
> > > > > > calling
> > > > > >
> > > > > > void g(B = {0});
> > > > >
> > > > > In practice it seems not, because we don't call convert_default_arg
> > > > > when processing_template_decl is set (verified with an assert to
> > > > > that effect). In build_over_call for example we exit early when
> > > > > processing_template_decl is set, and return a templated CALL_EXPR
> > > > > that doesn't include default arguments at all. A consequence of
> > > > > this is that we don't reject ahead of time a call that would use
> > > > > an ill-formed dependent default argument, e.g.
> > > > >
> > > > > template<class T>
> > > > > void g(B = T{0});
> > > > >
> > > > > template<class>
> > > > > void f() {
> > > > > g<void>();
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > since the default argument instantiation would be the responsibility
> > > > > of convert_default_arg.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thinking hypothetically here, if we do in the future want to include
> > > > > default
> > > > > arguments in the templated form of a CALL_EXPR,
> > > >
> > > > We definitely do not want to; the templated form should be as close as
> > > > possible to the source.
> > >
> > > Ah, sounds good.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > We might want to perform non-dependent conversions to get any errors (such
> > > > as
> > > > this one) before throwing away the result. Which would be parallel to
> > > > what we
> > > > currently do in calling get_nsdmi, and would want the same behavior.
> > >
> > > *nod*
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > shall we go with the original approach to clear
> > > > > processing_template_decl directly from get_nsdmi?
> > > >
> > > > OK, but then we should also checking_assert !processing_template_decl in
> > > > b_o_t_e.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately we'd trigger that assert from maybe_constant_value, which
> > > potentially calls b_o_t_e with processing_template_decl set.
> >
> > maybe_constant_value could also clear processing_template_decl; entries in
> > cv_cache are non-templated.
>
> Aha! I'll try that.
How does this look? Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] c++: get_nsdmi in template context [PR108116]
Here during ahead of time checking of C{}, we indirectly call get_nsdmi
for C::m from finish_compound_literal, which in turn calls
break_out_target_exprs for C::m's (non-templated) initializer, during
which we build a call to A::~A and check expr_noexcept_p for it (from
build_vec_delete_1). But this is all done with processing_template_decl
set, so the built A::~A call is templated (whose form was recently
changed by r12-6897-gdec8d0e5fa00ceb2) which expr_noexcept_p doesn't
expect, and we crash.
This patch fixes this by clearing processing_template_decl before
the call to break_out_target_exprs from get_nsdmi. And since it more
generally seems we shouldn't be seeing (or producing) non-templated
trees from break_out_target_exprs, this patch also adds an assert to
that effect.
PR c++/108116
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.cc (maybe_constant_value): Clear
processing_template_decl before calling break_out_target_exprs.
* init.cc (get_nsdmi): Likewise.
* tree.cc (break_out_target_exprs): Assert processing_template_decl
is cleared.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 4 ++++
gcc/cp/init.cc | 4 ++++
gcc/cp/tree.cc | 4 ++++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C | 22 +++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
index d99c49bdbe2..414af7a6d4c 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
@@ -8507,6 +8507,10 @@ maybe_constant_value (tree t, tree decl /* = NULL_TREE */,
r = *cached;
if (r != t)
{
+ /* Clear processing_template_decl for sake of break_out_target_exprs;
+ entries in the cv_cache are non-templated. */
+ processing_template_decl_sentinel ptds;
+
r = break_out_target_exprs (r, /*clear_loc*/true);
protected_set_expr_location (r, EXPR_LOCATION (t));
}
diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.cc b/gcc/cp/init.cc
index 73e6547c076..b49a7ca9169 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/init.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc
@@ -670,6 +670,10 @@ get_nsdmi (tree member, bool in_ctor, tsubst_flags_t complain)
current_class_ptr = build_address (current_class_ref);
}
+ /* Clear processing_template_decl for sake of break_out_target_exprs;
+ INIT is always non-templated. */
+ processing_template_decl_sentinel ptds;
+
/* Strip redundant TARGET_EXPR so we don't need to remap it, and
so the aggregate init code below will see a CONSTRUCTOR. */
bool simple_target = (init && SIMPLE_TARGET_EXPR_P (init));
diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.cc b/gcc/cp/tree.cc
index 33bde16f128..faf01616f87 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/tree.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/tree.cc
@@ -3342,6 +3342,10 @@ break_out_target_exprs (tree t, bool clear_location /* = false */)
static int target_remap_count;
static splay_tree target_remap;
+ /* We shouldn't be called on templated trees, nor do we want to
+ produce them. */
+ gcc_checking_assert (!processing_template_decl);
+
if (!target_remap_count++)
target_remap = splay_tree_new (splay_tree_compare_pointers,
/*splay_tree_delete_key_fn=*/NULL,
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..202c67d7321
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+// PR c++/108116
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+#include <initializer_list>
+
+struct A {
+ A(int);
+ ~A();
+};
+
+struct B {
+ B(std::initializer_list<A>);
+};
+
+struct C {
+ B m{0};
+};
+
+template<class>
+void f() {
+ C c = C{};
+};
--
2.39.0.95.g7c2ef319c5
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: get_nsdmi in template context [PR108116]
2022-12-23 15:48 ` Patrick Palka
@ 2022-12-23 16:04 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2022-12-23 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick Palka; +Cc: gcc-patches
On 12/23/22 10:48, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/22/22 16:41, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/22/22 11:31, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/21/22 09:52, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>>>>>>> Here during ahead of time checking of C{}, we indirectly call
>>>>>>>> get_nsdmi
>>>>>>>> for C::m from finish_compound_literal, which in turn calls
>>>>>>>> break_out_target_exprs for C::m's (non-templated) initializer,
>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>> which we end up building a call to A::~A and checking
>>>>>>>> expr_noexcept_p
>>>>>>>> for it (from build_vec_delete_1). But this is all done with
>>>>>>>> processing_template_decl set, so the built A::~A call is templated
>>>>>>>> (whose form r12-6897-gdec8d0e5fa00ceb2 recently changed) which
>>>>>>>> expr_noexcept_p doesn't expect and we crash.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In r10-6183-g20afdcd3698275 we fixed a similar issue by guarding a
>>>>>>>> expr_noexcept_p call with !processing_template_decl, which works
>>>>>>>> here
>>>>>>>> too. But it seems to me since the initializer we obtain in
>>>>>>>> get_nsdmi is
>>>>>>>> always non-templated, it should be calling break_out_target_exprs
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> processing_template_decl cleared since otherwise the function might
>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>> up mixing templated and non-templated trees.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure about this though, perhaps this is not the best fix
>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>> Alternatively, when processing_template_decl we could make get_nsdmi
>>>>>>>> avoid calling break_out_target_exprs at all or something.
>>>>>>>> Additionally,
>>>>>>>> perhaps break_out_target_exprs should be a no-op more generally when
>>>>>>>> processing_template_decl since we shouldn't see any TARGET_EXPRs
>>>>>>>> inside
>>>>>>>> a template?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any time we would call break_out_target_exprs we're dealing with
>>>>>>> non-dependent
>>>>>>> expressions; if we're in a template, we're building up an initializer
>>>>>>> or a
>>>>>>> call that we'll soon throw away, just for the purpose of checking or
>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Furthermore, as you say, the argument is always a non-template tree,
>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>> in get_nsdmi or convert_default_arg. So having
>>>>>>> processing_template_decl
>>>>>>> cleared would be correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think we can get away with not calling break_out_target_exprs
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> in a template; if nothing else, we would lose immediate invocation
>>>>>>> expansion.
>>>>>>> However, we could probably skip the bot_manip tree walk, which should
>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>> the problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either way we end up returning non-template trees, as we do now, and
>>>>>>> callers
>>>>>>> have to deal with transient CONSTRUCTORs containing such (as we do in
>>>>>>> massage_init_elt).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah I see, makes sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does convert_default_arg not run into the same problem, e.g. when
>>>>>>> calling
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void g(B = {0});
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In practice it seems not, because we don't call convert_default_arg
>>>>>> when processing_template_decl is set (verified with an assert to
>>>>>> that effect). In build_over_call for example we exit early when
>>>>>> processing_template_decl is set, and return a templated CALL_EXPR
>>>>>> that doesn't include default arguments at all. A consequence of
>>>>>> this is that we don't reject ahead of time a call that would use
>>>>>> an ill-formed dependent default argument, e.g.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> template<class T>
>>>>>> void g(B = T{0});
>>>>>>
>>>>>> template<class>
>>>>>> void f() {
>>>>>> g<void>();
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> since the default argument instantiation would be the responsibility
>>>>>> of convert_default_arg.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thinking hypothetically here, if we do in the future want to include
>>>>>> default
>>>>>> arguments in the templated form of a CALL_EXPR,
>>>>>
>>>>> We definitely do not want to; the templated form should be as close as
>>>>> possible to the source.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, sounds good.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We might want to perform non-dependent conversions to get any errors (such
>>>>> as
>>>>> this one) before throwing away the result. Which would be parallel to
>>>>> what we
>>>>> currently do in calling get_nsdmi, and would want the same behavior.
>>>>
>>>> *nod*
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> shall we go with the original approach to clear
>>>>>> processing_template_decl directly from get_nsdmi?
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, but then we should also checking_assert !processing_template_decl in
>>>>> b_o_t_e.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately we'd trigger that assert from maybe_constant_value, which
>>>> potentially calls b_o_t_e with processing_template_decl set.
>>>
>>> maybe_constant_value could also clear processing_template_decl; entries in
>>> cv_cache are non-templated.
>>
>> Aha! I'll try that.
>
> How does this look? Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
OK.
> -- >8 --
>
> Subject: [PATCH] c++: get_nsdmi in template context [PR108116]
>
> Here during ahead of time checking of C{}, we indirectly call get_nsdmi
> for C::m from finish_compound_literal, which in turn calls
> break_out_target_exprs for C::m's (non-templated) initializer, during
> which we build a call to A::~A and check expr_noexcept_p for it (from
> build_vec_delete_1). But this is all done with processing_template_decl
> set, so the built A::~A call is templated (whose form was recently
> changed by r12-6897-gdec8d0e5fa00ceb2) which expr_noexcept_p doesn't
> expect, and we crash.
>
> This patch fixes this by clearing processing_template_decl before
> the call to break_out_target_exprs from get_nsdmi. And since it more
> generally seems we shouldn't be seeing (or producing) non-templated
> trees from break_out_target_exprs, this patch also adds an assert to
> that effect.
>
> PR c++/108116
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * constexpr.cc (maybe_constant_value): Clear
> processing_template_decl before calling break_out_target_exprs.
> * init.cc (get_nsdmi): Likewise.
> * tree.cc (break_out_target_exprs): Assert processing_template_decl
> is cleared.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C: New test.
> ---
> gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 4 ++++
> gcc/cp/init.cc | 4 ++++
> gcc/cp/tree.cc | 4 ++++
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C | 22 +++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> index d99c49bdbe2..414af7a6d4c 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> @@ -8507,6 +8507,10 @@ maybe_constant_value (tree t, tree decl /* = NULL_TREE */,
> r = *cached;
> if (r != t)
> {
> + /* Clear processing_template_decl for sake of break_out_target_exprs;
> + entries in the cv_cache are non-templated. */
> + processing_template_decl_sentinel ptds;
> +
> r = break_out_target_exprs (r, /*clear_loc*/true);
> protected_set_expr_location (r, EXPR_LOCATION (t));
> }
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.cc b/gcc/cp/init.cc
> index 73e6547c076..b49a7ca9169 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/init.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc
> @@ -670,6 +670,10 @@ get_nsdmi (tree member, bool in_ctor, tsubst_flags_t complain)
> current_class_ptr = build_address (current_class_ref);
> }
>
> + /* Clear processing_template_decl for sake of break_out_target_exprs;
> + INIT is always non-templated. */
> + processing_template_decl_sentinel ptds;
> +
> /* Strip redundant TARGET_EXPR so we don't need to remap it, and
> so the aggregate init code below will see a CONSTRUCTOR. */
> bool simple_target = (init && SIMPLE_TARGET_EXPR_P (init));
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.cc b/gcc/cp/tree.cc
> index 33bde16f128..faf01616f87 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/tree.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/tree.cc
> @@ -3342,6 +3342,10 @@ break_out_target_exprs (tree t, bool clear_location /* = false */)
> static int target_remap_count;
> static splay_tree target_remap;
>
> + /* We shouldn't be called on templated trees, nor do we want to
> + produce them. */
> + gcc_checking_assert (!processing_template_decl);
> +
> if (!target_remap_count++)
> target_remap = splay_tree_new (splay_tree_compare_pointers,
> /*splay_tree_delete_key_fn=*/NULL,
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..202c67d7321
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template24.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> +// PR c++/108116
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> +
> +#include <initializer_list>
> +
> +struct A {
> + A(int);
> + ~A();
> +};
> +
> +struct B {
> + B(std::initializer_list<A>);
> +};
> +
> +struct C {
> + B m{0};
> +};
> +
> +template<class>
> +void f() {
> + C c = C{};
> +};
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-12-23 16:04 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-12-21 14:52 [PATCH] c++: get_nsdmi in template context [PR108116] Patrick Palka
2022-12-21 14:56 ` Patrick Palka
2022-12-21 21:48 ` Jason Merrill
2022-12-22 16:31 ` Patrick Palka
2022-12-22 21:33 ` Jason Merrill
2022-12-22 21:41 ` Patrick Palka
2022-12-22 22:03 ` Jason Merrill
2022-12-22 22:41 ` Patrick Palka
2022-12-23 15:48 ` Patrick Palka
2022-12-23 16:04 ` 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).