From: Patrick Palka <patrick@parcs.ath.cx>
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR c++/70332 (ICE due to aggregate initialization of NSDMI)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 01:33:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+C-WL9fEERNQN1gnJJarQk6ivffOmMkSKhGrBztQAn5pcFgaw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+C-WL86jp0WLYrS+GikPiN5H-bH9Sa0OXmjaUZYq3qnMMAZuA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Patrick Palka <patrick@parcs.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 03/22/2016 05:35 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>>
>>> + if (cp_unevaluated_operand == 0
>>
>>
>> Why check this here?
>
> Just so that the change doesn't affect the behavior of tsubst_decl()
> when cp_unevaluated_operand != 0. Presumably the existing code (10
> lines below) handles that case just fine.
Turns out that without the check we can trigger the cxx_dialect >=
cxx14 assert because in c++11 mode we can reach the assert through
get_defaulted_eh_spec() which increments cp_unevaluated_operand and
then calls get_nsdmi (..., /*in_ctor=*/false) causing
current_class_ref to get set to a PLACEHOLDER_EXPR.
So for example g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template2.C regresses with an ICE.
So it seems the cp_unevaluated_operand != 0 check is necessary as long
as the assert stays.
There are no regressions if both the cp_unevaluated_operand check and
the assert are removed however.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-22 23:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-22 21:40 Patrick Palka
2016-03-22 22:33 ` Jason Merrill
2016-03-22 22:45 ` Patrick Palka
2016-03-23 1:33 ` Patrick Palka [this message]
2016-03-23 13:05 ` Jason Merrill
2016-03-23 13:25 ` Patrick Palka
2016-03-23 13:52 ` Jason Merrill
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA+C-WL9fEERNQN1gnJJarQk6ivffOmMkSKhGrBztQAn5pcFgaw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=patrick@parcs.ath.cx \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).