[Bug c++/64100] A static assert using the the current class in a noexcept test leads to a segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64100 Kai Tietz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz --- Fixed. As it is an error on invalid-code, it won't get backported automatically. Close it.
[Bug c++/64100] A static assert using the the current class in a noexcept test leads to a segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64100 --- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz --- Author: ktietz Date: Wed Dec 10 11:26:47 2014 New Revision: 218572 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218572&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/64100 * g++.dg/template/pr64100.C: New file. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/pr64100.C Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug c++/64100] A static assert using the the current class in a noexcept test leads to a segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64100 --- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz --- Author: ktietz Date: Wed Dec 10 11:22:34 2014 New Revision: 218571 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218571&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/64100 * typeck.c (lookup_destructor): Handle incomplete type. Modified: trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/typeck.c
[Bug c++/64100] A static assert using the the current class in a noexcept test leads to a segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64100
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #4)
> (In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #2)
> > Following patch fixes this issue for me:
>
> Were you going to send the patch to the list?
Yes, I will send it today to ML. I will put you CC.
> > + if (!expr)
> > +{
> > + cxx_incomplete_type_error (dtor_name, dtor_type);
> > + return error_mark_node;
> > +}
>
> The error needs to be conditional on (complain & tf_error).
Ok, I'll add that.
> Does the caller handle error_mark_node properly?
Yes, I tested it before. By just returning error_mark_node the testcase will
be processed completely silently by g++.
[Bug c++/64100] A static assert using the the current class in a noexcept test leads to a segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64100
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #2)
> Following patch fixes this issue for me:
Were you going to send the patch to the list?
> + if (!expr)
> +{
> + cxx_incomplete_type_error (dtor_name, dtor_type);
> + return error_mark_node;
> +}
The error needs to be conditional on (complain & tf_error).
Does the caller handle error_mark_node properly?
[Bug c++/64100] A static assert using the the current class in a noexcept test leads to a segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64100 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Yeah, r160250 still errored out on it, r160311 already ICEs.
[Bug c++/64100] A static assert using the the current class in a noexcept test leads to a segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64100
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz ---
Issue is that lookup_destructor calls adjust_result_of_qualified_name_lookup
with an NULL_TREE decl (returned by lookup_member). Here the error-check seems
to be missing.
Following patch fixes this issue for me:
Index: typeck.c
===
--- typeck.c(Revision 218142)
+++ typeck.c(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -2536,6 +2536,11 @@ lookup_destructor (tree object, tree scope, tree d
expr = lookup_member (dtor_type, complete_dtor_identifier,
/*protect=*/1, /*want_type=*/false,
tf_warning_or_error);
+ if (!expr)
+{
+ cxx_incomplete_type_error (dtor_name, dtor_type);
+ return error_mark_node;
+}
expr = (adjust_result_of_qualified_name_lookup
(expr, dtor_type, object_type));
if (scope == NULL_TREE)
Index: search.c
===
--- search.c(Revision 218142)
+++ search.c(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -1530,6 +1530,9 @@ adjust_result_of_qualified_name_lookup (tree decl,
tree qualifying_scope,
tree context_class)
{
+ if (!decl)
+return NULL_TREE;
+
if (context_class && context_class != error_mark_node
&& CLASS_TYPE_P (context_class)
&& CLASS_TYPE_P (qualifying_scope)
The change to search.c isn't really required, but avoids to show the ice in
adjust_result_of_qualifying.
[Bug c++/64100] A static assert using the the current class in a noexcept test leads to a segfault
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64100 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2014-12-03 CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |4.8.4 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- I see ICE even with 4.6.
