https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #61540|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 61546
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61546&action=edit
gcc16-pr117785-wip.patch
Further progress.
My current problem is with std::nested_exception (but guess arbitrary code
which uses std::current_exception () or perhaps std::uncaught_exceptions ()).
In the testcase I have (simplified):
try
{
throw 42;
}
catch (...)
{
std::nested_exception c;
if (c.nested_ptr () == nullptr)
return -1;
}
and -1 is the return value I'm getting but don't expect.
The problem is that when parsing the c declaration, we try to constant evaluate
the constructor just in case it can be constructed without a call, and there
current_exception () returns { nullptr } because it isn't evaluated with an
active exception at that point.
Shall the two functions just give up when not manifestly constant-evaluated?
Or non-strict?
