On Tue, 5 Mar 2024, Marek Polacek wrote:

> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> 
> -- >8 --
> Here we ICE because we call register_local_specialization while
> local_specializations is null, so
> 
>   local_specializations->put ();
> 
> crashes on null this.  It's null since maybe_instantiate_noexcept calls
> push_to_top_level which creates a new scope.  Normally, I would have
> guessed that we need a new local_specialization_stack.  But here we're
> dealing with an operand of a noexcept, which is an unevaluated operand,
> and those aren't registered in the hash map.  maybe_instantiate_noexcept
> wasn't signalling that it's substituting an unevaluated operand though.

It thought it was noexcept-exprs rather than noexcept-specs that are
unevaluated contexts?

> 
>       PR c++/114114
> 
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> 
>       * pt.cc (maybe_instantiate_noexcept): Save/restore
>       cp_unevaluated_operand, c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings, and
>       cp_noexcept_operand around the tsubst_expr call.
> 
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> 
>       * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept84.C: New test.
> ---
>  gcc/cp/pt.cc                            |  6 +++++
>  gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept84.C | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept84.C
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.cc b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
> index c4bc54a8fdb..11f7d33c766 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/pt.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
> @@ -26869,10 +26869,16 @@ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (tree fn, tsubst_flags_t 
> complain)
>         if (orig_fn)
>           ++processing_template_decl;
>  
> +       ++cp_unevaluated_operand;
> +       ++c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
> +       ++cp_noexcept_operand;
>         /* Do deferred instantiation of the noexcept-specifier.  */
>         noex = tsubst_expr (DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT_PATTERN (noex),
>                             DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT_ARGS (noex),
>                             tf_warning_or_error, fn);
> +       --cp_unevaluated_operand;
> +       --c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
> +       --cp_noexcept_operand;
>  
>         /* Build up the noexcept-specification.  */
>         spec = build_noexcept_spec (noex, tf_warning_or_error);
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept84.C 
> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept84.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..06f33264f77
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept84.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> +// PR c++/114114
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> +
> +template<bool B>
> +constexpr void
> +test ()
> +{
> +  constexpr bool is_yes = B;
> +  struct S {
> +    constexpr S() noexcept(is_yes) { }
> +  };
> +  S s;
> +}
> +
> +constexpr bool foo() { return true; }
> +
> +template<typename T>
> +constexpr void
> +test2 ()
> +{
> +  constexpr T (*pfn)() = &foo;
> +  struct S {
> +    constexpr S() noexcept(pfn()) { }
> +  };
> +  S s;
> +}
> +
> +int main()
> +{
> +  test<true>();
> +  test2<bool>();
> +}
> 
> base-commit: 8776468d9e57ace5f832c1368243a6dbce9984d5
> -- 
> 2.44.0
> 
> 

Reply via email to