Re: [PATCH] c++/114409 - ANNOTATE_EXPR and templates

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 06:43:02PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> The following fixes a mismatch in COMPOUND_EXPR handling in
> tsubst_expr vs tsubst_stmt where the latter allows a stmt in
> operand zero but the former doesn't.  This makes a difference
> for the case at hand because when the COMPOUND_EXPR is wrapped
> inside an ANNOTATE_EXPR it gets handled by tsubst_expr and when
> not, tsubst_stmt successfully handles it and the contained
> DECL_EXPR in operand zero.
> 
> The following makes handling of COMPOUND_EXPR in tsubst_expr
> consistent with that of tsubst_stmt for the operand that doesn't
> specify the result and thus the reason we choose either or the
> other for substing.
> 
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK?
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard.
> 
> 	PR c++/114409
> gcc/cp/
> 	* pt.cc (tsubst_expr): Recurse to COMPOUND_EXPR operand
> 	zero using tsubst_stmt, when that returns NULL return
> 	the subst operand one, mimicing what tsubst_stmt does.
> 
> gcc/testsuite/
> 	* g++.dg/pr114409.C: New testcase.

I've posted https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114409#c16
for this already and Jason agreed to that version, so I just have to test it
tonight:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-April/649165.html

	Jakub