On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:43 PM Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> * typeck.c (build_static_cast_1): Use cp_build_addr_expr.
>
> For GCC 9 I fixed this bug with a patch to gimplify_cond_expr, but this
> function was also doing the wrong thing.
>
> Using build_address does not push the ADDR_EXPR down into the arms of a
> COND_EXPR, which we need for proper handling of conversion of an lvalue ?:
> to another reference type.
And that allows the gimplifier to assert that we should never see a
COND_EXPR of addressable type.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit c4f1e37204aaea7efb2aa7dc234d5c8ebeba1089
Author: Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Mar 4 14:09:57 2019 -0500
* gimplify.c (gimplify_cond_expr): Don't check TREE_ADDRESSABLE.
The front end shouldn't produce a GENERIC COND_EXPR of TREE_ADDRESSABLE
type.
diff --git a/gcc/gimplify.c b/gcc/gimplify.c
index 5bacb255ba7..6905165ad33 100644
--- a/gcc/gimplify.c
+++ b/gcc/gimplify.c
@@ -3990,10 +3990,12 @@ gimplify_cond_expr (tree *expr_p, gimple_seq *pre_p,
fallback_t fallback)
tree result;
/* If either an rvalue is ok or we do not require an lvalue, create the
- temporary. But we cannot do that if the type is addressable. */
+ temporary. We cannot do that if the type is addressable, but
+ that should have been avoided before we got here. */
if (((fallback & fb_rvalue) || !(fallback & fb_lvalue))
- && !TREE_ADDRESSABLE (type))
+ && (flag_checking || !TREE_ADDRESSABLE (type)))
{
+ gcc_assert (!TREE_ADDRESSABLE (type));
if (gimplify_ctxp->allow_rhs_cond_expr
/* If either branch has side effects or could trap, it can't be
evaluated unconditionally. */
