On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/20/2016 07:52 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Sorry, I may have been referring to an older patch. With the latest
> patch, the assertion is on line 75. It's also not failing, even
> though it should be. The problem is that I had misunderstood how
> the vertical bar in DejaGnu directives works. I thought it meant
> that both sides had to match a message on that line, when it means
> only one side has to. I'll need to fix that (how does one match
> two messages on the same line?)
>
> But removing the hunk as you suggest does break the intent of the
> test. With it there, we get a descriptive message for the invalid
> code below clearly explaining the problem:
>
> $ cat xyz.c && /build/gcc-60760/gcc/xgcc -B /build/gcc-60760/gcc -S -Wall
> -Wextra -Wpedantic -xc++ xyz.c
> struct S { const S *p; int i; };
>
> constexpr S s0 = { 0, 0 };
> constexpr S s1 = { &s0, 1 };
>
> constexpr int i = s1.p->p->i;
> xyz.c:6:28: error: dereferencing a null pointer
> constexpr int i = s1.p->p->i;
> ^
>
> With the hunk removed, all we get is the generic:
>
> xyz.c:6:28: error: ‘*(const S*)((const S*)s1.S::p)->S::p’ is not a constant
> expression
> constexpr int i = s1.p->p->i;
> ^
>
> Re-reading your comment above now: "since *p is valid for null p;"
> I agree that &*p is valid when p is null. Unless I missed a case
> it is accepted with or without the hunk. Otherwise, *p is not valid,
> and it is also rejected with or without it.
>
> Is there something else you're worried about with the hunk that
> makes you want to trade it off for the less informative message?
OK, we can keep the hunk, but only when !lval, since that means we
access the value.
Jason
