On Tue, 2 May 2023, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 5/1/23 15:59, Patrick Palka wrote: > > Here we're incorrectly deeming the templated call a.g() inside b's > > initializer as potentially constant, despite g being non-constexpr, > > which leads to us wastefully instantiating the initializer ahead of time > > and triggering a bug in access checking deferral (which will get fixed > > in the subsequent patch). > > > > This patch fixes this by calling get_fns earlier during potentiality > > checking so that we also handle the templated form of a member function > > call (whose overall callee is a COMPONENT_REF) when checking if the called > > function is constexpr etc. > > > > PR c++/109480 > > > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog: > > > > * constexpr.cc (potential_constant_expression_1) <case CALL_EXPR>: > > Reorganize to call get_fns sooner. Remove dead store to 'fun'. > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C: Make e() constexpr so that the > > expected "without object" diagnostic isn't replaced by a > > "call to non-constexpr function" diagnostic. > > * g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C: New test. > > --- > > gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 16 ++++++++-------- > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C | 2 +- > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C | 14 ++++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C > > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc > > index d1097764b10..29d872d0a5e 100644 > > --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc > > +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc > > @@ -9132,6 +9132,10 @@ potential_constant_expression_1 (tree t, bool > > want_rval, bool strict, bool now, > > if (fun && is_overloaded_fn (fun)) > > { > > + if (!RECUR (fun, true)) > > + return false; > > + fun = get_fns (fun); > > + > > if (TREE_CODE (fun) == FUNCTION_DECL) > > { > > if (builtin_valid_in_constant_expr_p (fun)) > > @@ -9167,7 +9171,8 @@ potential_constant_expression_1 (tree t, bool > > want_rval, bool strict, bool now, > > expression the address will be folded away, so look > > through it now. */ > > if (DECL_NONSTATIC_MEMBER_FUNCTION_P (fun) > > - && !DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (fun)) > > + && !DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (fun) > > + && !processing_template_decl) > > I don't see any rationale for this hunk?
Now that we call get_fns earlier, we can reach this code path with a templated non-static memfn call, but the code that follows assumes non-templated form. I tried teaching it to handle the templated form too, but there's apparently two different templated forms for non-static memfn calls, one with a COMPONENT_REF callee and one with an ordinary BASELINK callee (without a implicit object argument). In the former the implict object argument is inside the COMPONENT_REF (and is a reference instead of a pointer), and in the latter we don't even have an implicit object argument to inspect. FWIW I think which form we use depends on whether we know if the called function is a member of the current instantiation, e.g struct A { void f(); }; template<class T> struct B; template<class T> struct C : B<T> { void g(); void h() { A::f(); // templated form has BASELINK callee, no object arg C::g(); // templated form has COMPONENT_REF callee } }; So it seemed best to punt on templated non-static memfn calls here for now and treat that as a separate enhancement. > > > { > > tree x = get_nth_callarg (t, 0); > > if (is_this_parameter (x)) > > @@ -9182,16 +9187,11 @@ potential_constant_expression_1 (tree t, bool > > want_rval, bool strict, bool now, > > i = 1; > > } > > } > > - else > > - { > > - if (!RECUR (fun, true)) > > - return false; > > - fun = get_first_fn (fun); > > - } > > + > > + fun = OVL_FIRST (fun); > > /* Skip initial arguments to base constructors. */ > > if (DECL_BASE_CONSTRUCTOR_P (fun)) > > i = num_artificial_parms_for (fun); > > - fun = DECL_ORIGIN (fun); > > } > > else if (fun) > > { > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C > > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C > > index c752601ba09..1dc826d3111 100644 > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C > > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ > > template <class ...Ts> class A > > { > > - void e (); > > + constexpr bool e () { return true; }; > > bool f (int() noexcept(this->e())); // { dg-error "this" } > > bool g (int() noexcept(e())); // { dg-error "without object" } > > }; > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C > > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000..a2f9801e11f > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C > > @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ > > +// PR c++/109480 > > + > > +template<class T> > > +struct A { > > + void f() { > > + A<int> a; > > + const bool b = a.g(); > > + } > > + > > +private: > > + bool g() const; > > +}; > > + > > +template struct A<int>; > >