From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1F573858D39 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:07:02 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A1F573858D39 Received: from mail-yw1-f198.google.com (mail-yw1-f198.google.com [209.85.128.198]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-561-c-Y1ufYMOEyDzra_fMitVw-1; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:06:59 -0400 X-MC-Unique: c-Y1ufYMOEyDzra_fMitVw-1 Received: by mail-yw1-f198.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-31ba792c793so3944477b3.20 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:06:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cpx7Ew2rJ6dWmoH7k3W0Erf+r3FWk7T915HJUDB9O6I=; b=sX7rnqcla6v2MkSM7b3fl5CQ81CM/wTnaS/cDItcmuYzqTm3muicY0yh6yxKalb9pW R5cBohJ1I+RQI0W0rMF03Axh72uJBrkD1i2YE4DfPqnJf8Skv2rCSJbQl5miSf+gEM9+ i0aDf0k9mVk3jkDYv4q4Nr32NTqlSfrRGrM1yjSnsRhtNLo9R06jn8F+I+XOG7z2HFNy EGJDID+Ba+ZhBwbrrx7Pw0A24nF7S2RIMWY+0MtlMoPhehuyWLeMRgdkPilg9kHqb/Pg 9XIT5cD3IPnY3zJMt9F2ryS23nWogzdHKxl+XwFEl5/8QQK1sqlUsk4KGk3CfZcCQsqB JQ1w== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9sU6HvAgr4EOUnH/BNuXHRQzVwwjgc5Ss6Hlco1edDt5CbEEzn 5Iu4VWd9RhkGFwDY6RN1lVdyfYuSUhn4egGyA6rmKUrmmpF2liX8gejm3K5xjJwQre595KZ/tk7 JCqEAvJ1ufOKdnnXvQ0D3ufbWuGDBi56b2w== X-Received: by 2002:a25:bf82:0:b0:669:b394:33c with SMTP id l2-20020a25bf82000000b00669b394033cmr11081752ybk.102.1656623218896; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:06:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1uX+VTwc/eEaFQHWqtSpcm0Nkk23YaPPAtiMr1LfZ2LmFDPl8xsfqo/Le8LRI3K3Vzic7YkzwxZ+spAiAmDOsU= X-Received: by 2002:a25:bf82:0:b0:669:b394:33c with SMTP id l2-20020a25bf82000000b00669b394033cmr11081715ybk.102.1656623218521; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:06:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220601192038.1778324-1-jason@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20220601192038.1778324-1-jason@redhat.com> From: Patrick Palka Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:06:47 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [pushed] c++: auto function as function argument [PR105779] To: Jason Merrill Cc: GCC Patches X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, GIT_PATCH_0, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:07:05 -0000 On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 3:21 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote: > > This testcase demonstrates that the issue in PR105623 is not limited to > templates, so we should do the marking in a less template-specific place. > > Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. > > PR c++/105779 > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog: > > * call.cc (resolve_args): Call mark_single_function here. > * pt.cc (unify_one_argument): Not here. > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * g++.dg/cpp1y/auto-fn63.C: New test. > --- > gcc/cp/call.cc | 5 +++++ > gcc/cp/pt.cc | 4 ---- > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/auto-fn63.C | 12 ++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/auto-fn63.C > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/call.cc b/gcc/cp/call.cc > index 85fe9b5ab85..4710c3777c5 100644 > --- a/gcc/cp/call.cc > +++ b/gcc/cp/call.cc > @@ -4672,6 +4672,11 @@ resolve_args (vec *args, tsubst_flags_t complain) > } > else if (invalid_nonstatic_memfn_p (EXPR_LOCATION (arg), arg, complain)) > return NULL; > + > + /* Force auto deduction now. Omit tf_warning to avoid redundant > + deprecated warning on deprecated-14.C. */ > + if (!mark_single_function (arg, tf_error)) I wonder why pass tf_error here instead of an appropriately masked 'complain'? > + return NULL; > } > return args; > } > diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.cc b/gcc/cp/pt.cc > index 4f0ace2644b..6de8e496859 100644 > --- a/gcc/cp/pt.cc > +++ b/gcc/cp/pt.cc > @@ -22624,10 +22624,6 @@ unify_one_argument (tree tparms, tree targs, tree parm, tree arg, > return unify_success (explain_p); > } > > - /* Force auto deduction now. Use tf_none to avoid redundant > - deprecated warning on deprecated-14.C. */ > - mark_single_function (arg, tf_none); > - > arg_expr = arg; > arg = unlowered_expr_type (arg); > if (arg == error_mark_node) > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/auto-fn63.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/auto-fn63.C > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000000..ca3bc854065 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/auto-fn63.C > @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ > +// PR c++/105779 > +// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } } > + > +template > +struct struct1 > +{ > + static auto apply() { return 1; } > +}; > + > +int method(int(*f)()); > + > +int t = method(struct1<1>::apply); > > base-commit: ae54c1b09963779c5c3914782324ff48af32e2f1 > -- > 2.27.0 >