On 4/8/20 12:43 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 4/7/20 2:50 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Among the numerous regressions introduced by the change committed
to GCC 9 to allow string literals as template arguments is a failure
to recognize the C++ nullptr and GCC's __null constants as pointers.
For one, I didn't realize that nullptr, being a null pointer constant,
doesn't have a pointer type, and two, I didn't think of __null (which
is a special integer constant that NULL sometimes expands to).
The attached patch adjusts the special handling of trailing zero
initializers in reshape_init_array_1 to recognize both kinds of
constants and avoid treating them as zeros of the array integer
element type. This restores the expected diagnostics when either
constant is used in the initializer list.
This is another problem due to doing this checking too early, as with
90938. Let's look at your other patch from the 90938 discussion to move
the zero pruning to process_init_constructor_array.
The patch for pr90938 handles this correctly, and I'm planning to
resubmit it in stage 1 (as I thought ultimately ended up being your
expectation as well). A I mentioned in the review at the end of
February I had reservations about making those changes then because
it seemed late to me. I'm that much less comfortable with them now,
barely a month away from the anticipated release date.
For reference, the last revision of the patch is here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-February/540792.html
Martin
PS As a reminder, all these bugs (94510, 94124, 90947, and 90938)
were introduced by making a similar change to code I wasn't familiar
with at the very end of GCC 9.
