On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 02:37:07PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 7/20/23 14:13, Marek Polacek wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 10:11:27AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Jul 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk and > > > > branches? > > > > > > Looks reasonable to me. > > > > Thanks. > > > Though I wonder if we could also fix this by not checking potentiality > > > at all in this case? The problematic call to > > > is_rvalue_constant_expression > > > happens from cp_parser_constant_expression with 'allow_non_constant' != 0 > > > and with 'non_constant_p' being a dummy out argument that comes from > > > cp_parser_functional_cast, so the result of is_rvalue_constant_expression > > > is effectively unused in this case, and we should be able to safely elide > > > it when 'allow_non_constant && non_constant_p == nullptr'. > > > > Sounds plausible. I think my patch could be applied first since it > > removes a tiny bit of code, then I can hopefully remove the flag below, > > then maybe go back and optimize the call to is_rvalue_constant_expression. > > Does that sound sensible? > > > > > Relatedly, ISTM the member cp_parser::non_integral_constant_expression_p > > > is also effectively unused and could be removed? > > > > It looks that way. Seems it's only used in cp_parser_constant_expression: > > 10806 if (allow_non_constant_p) > > 10807 *non_constant_p = parser->non_integral_constant_expression_p; > > but that could be easily replaced by a local var. I'd be happy to see if > > we can actually do away with it. (I wonder why it was introduced and when > > it actually stopped being useful.) > > It was for the C++98 notion of constant-expression, which was more of a > parser-level notion, and has been supplanted by the C++11 version. I'm > happy to remove it, and therefore remove the is_rvalue_constant_expression > call.
Wonderful. I'll do that next. > > > > -- >8 -- > > > > > > > > is_really_empty_class is liable to crash when it gets an incomplete > > > > or dependent type. Since r11-557, we pass the yet-uninstantiated > > > > class type S<0> of the PARM_DECL s to is_really_empty_class -- because > > > > of the potential_rvalue_constant_expression -> > > > > is_rvalue_constant_expression > > > > change in cp_parser_constant_expression. Here we're not parsing > > > > a template so we did not check COMPLETE_TYPE_P as we should. > > > > > > > > PR c++/110106 > > > > > > > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog: > > > > > > > > * constexpr.cc (potential_constant_expression_1): Check > > > > COMPLETE_TYPE_P > > > > even when !processing_template_decl. > > > > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > > > > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept80.C: New test. > > > > --- > > > > gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 2 +- > > > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept80.C | 12 ++++++++++++ > > > > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept80.C > > > > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc > > > > index 6e8f1c2b61e..1f59c5472fb 100644 > > > > --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc > > > > +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc > > > > @@ -9116,7 +9116,7 @@ potential_constant_expression_1 (tree t, bool > > > > want_rval, bool strict, bool now, > > > > if (now && want_rval) > > > > { > > > > tree type = TREE_TYPE (t); > > > > - if ((processing_template_decl && !COMPLETE_TYPE_P (type)) > > > > + if (!COMPLETE_TYPE_P (type) > > > > || dependent_type_p (type) > > There shouldn't be a problem completing the type here, so it seems to me > that we're missing a call to complete_type_p, at least when > !processing_template_decl. Probably need to move the dependent_type_p check > up as a result. Like so? Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk? -- >8 -- is_really_empty_class is liable to crash when it gets an incomplete or dependent type. Since r11-557, we pass the yet-uninstantiated class type S<0> of the PARM_DECL s to is_really_empty_class -- because of the potential_rvalue_constant_expression -> is_rvalue_constant_expression change in cp_parser_constant_expression. Here we're not parsing a template so we did not check COMPLETE_TYPE_P as we should. It should work to complete the type before checking COMPLETE_TYPE_P. PR c++/110106 gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * constexpr.cc (potential_constant_expression_1): Try to complete the type when !processing_template_decl. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept80.C: New test. --- gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 5 +++-- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept80.C | 12 ++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept80.C diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc index 6e8f1c2b61e..fb94f3cefcb 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc @@ -9116,8 +9116,9 @@ potential_constant_expression_1 (tree t, bool want_rval, bool strict, bool now, if (now && want_rval) { tree type = TREE_TYPE (t); - if ((processing_template_decl && !COMPLETE_TYPE_P (type)) - || dependent_type_p (type) + if (dependent_type_p (type) + || !COMPLETE_TYPE_P (processing_template_decl + ? type : complete_type (type)) || is_really_empty_class (type, /*ignore_vptr*/false)) /* An empty class has no data to read. */ return true; diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept80.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept80.C new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..3e90af747e2 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept80.C @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +// PR c++/110106 +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } } + +template<int> struct S +{ +}; + +struct G { + G(S<0>); +}; + +void y(S<0> s) noexcept(noexcept(G{s})); base-commit: 4b8878fbf7b74ea5c3405c9f558df0517036f131 -- 2.41.0