On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/18/2016 11:51 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> On 07/06/2016 06:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> @@ -2911,6 +2923,14 @@ cxx_eval_indirect_ref (const constexpr_ctx
>>> *ctx, tree t,
>>> if (*non_constant_p)
>>> return t;
>>>
>>> + if (integer_zerop (op0))
>>> + {
>>> + if (!ctx->quiet)
>>> + error ("dereferencing a null pointer");
>>> + *non_constant_p = true;
>>> + return t;
>>> + }
>>
>> I'm skeptical of checking this here, since *p is valid for null p; &*p
>> is even a constant expression. And removing this hunk doesn't seem to
>> break any of your tests.
>>
>> OK with that hunk removed.
>
> With it removed the constexpr-nullptr-2.C test fails on line 64:
>
> constexpr const int *pi0 = &pa2->pa1->pa0->i; // { dg-error "null
> pointer|not a constant" }
>
> Here, pa2 and pa1 are non-null but pa0 is null.
It doesn't fail for me; that line hits the error in
cxx_eval_component_reference. I'm only talking about removing the
cxx_eval_indirect_ref hunk.
Jason
