[Bug c++/80259] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE deleting friend function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80259 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2
[Bug c++/80259] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE deleting friend function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80259
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With untested:
--- gcc/decl2.c.jj 2017-02-21 18:59:36.0 +0100
+++ gcc/decl2.c 2017-03-30 10:16:03.972113673 +0200
@@ -888,9 +888,18 @@ grokfield (const cp_declarator *declarat
{
if (init == ridpointers[(int)RID_DELETE])
{
- DECL_DELETED_FN (value) = 1;
- DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P (value) = 1;
- DECL_INITIAL (value) = error_mark_node;
+ if (friendp && decl_defined_p (value))
+ {
+ error ("redefinition of %q#D", value);
+ inform (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (value),
+ "%q#D previously defined here", value);
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ DECL_DELETED_FN (value) = 1;
+ DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P (value) = 1;
+ DECL_INITIAL (value) = error_mark_node;
+ }
}
else if (init == ridpointers[(int)RID_DEFAULT])
{
I get:
pr80259.C:5:23: error: redefinition of ‘void foo()’
friend void foo() = delete;
^~
pr80259.C:1:6: note: ‘void foo()’ previously defined here
void foo() {}
^~~
but no idea if you don't want to resolve it differently.
[Bug c++/80259] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE deleting friend function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80259
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
duplicate_decls is called with the DECL_INITIAL is still being NULL on the
newdecl (and olddecl has it a BLOCK).
#0 duplicate_decls (newdecl=,
olddecl=, newdecl_is_friend=true)
at ../../gcc/cp/decl.c:1401
#1 0x00a2420c in pushdecl_maybe_friend_1 (x=, is_friend=true) at ../../gcc/cp/name-lookup.c:835
#2 0x00a27940 in pushdecl_maybe_friend (x=, is_friend=true) at ../../gcc/cp/name-lookup.c:1352
#3 0x00a2aaff in pushdecl_with_scope_1 (x=, level=0x7fffefade000, is_friend=true)
at ../../gcc/cp/name-lookup.c:2349
#4 0x00a2aba2 in pushdecl_with_scope (x=, level=0x7fffefade000, is_friend=true)
at ../../gcc/cp/name-lookup.c:2363
#5 0x00a30b81 in pushdecl_namespace_level (x=, is_friend=true) at ../../gcc/cp/name-lookup.c:3978
#6 0x0097cf07 in do_friend (ctype=,
declarator=, decl=,
attrlist=, flags=NO_SPECIAL, funcdef_flag=false) at
../../gcc/cp/friend.c:640
#7 0x007c9f6a in grokdeclarator (declarator=0x2ad2a00,
declspecs=0x7fffd830, decl_context=FIELD, initialized=1,
attrlist=0x7fffd770) at ../../gcc/cp/decl.c:12060
#8 0x008b879f in grokfield (declarator=0x2ad2a60,
declspecs=0x7fffd830, init=,
init_const_expr_p=true, asmspec_tree=, attrlist=) at
../../gcc/cp/decl2.c:806
And only afterwards grokfield reaches:
889 if (init == ridpointers[(int)RID_DELETE])
890 {
891 DECL_DELETED_FN (value) = 1;
892 DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P (value) = 1;
893 DECL_INITIAL (value) = error_mark_node;
894 }
At this point I think we can't call redeclaration_error_message, because we
don't have the new decl anymore, only the merged (old one). Perhaps custom
error message here if value is a friend and it has non-NULL (or non-NULL and
non-error_mark_node?) DECL_INITIAL and use there location_t for the new decl
from declarator->id_loc (that would be the foo) or input_location (that would
be the deleted) or something similar?
[Bug c++/80259] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE deleting friend function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80259
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2017-03-30
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Started with r213974.
Before that we've rejected it with:
pr80259.C:5:23: error: can’t initialize friend function ‘foo’
friend void foo() = delete;
^
clang++ gives:
pr80259.C:5:15: error: inline declaration of 'foo' follows non-inline
definition
friend void foo() = delete;
^
pr80259.C:1:6: note: previous definition is here
void foo() {}
^
So, what diagnostics would be best here? What about:
void foo();
struct A
{
friend void foo() = delete;
};
void foo() {}
? With/without the first declaration we emit:
pr80259-2.C: In function ‘void foo()’:
pr80259-2.C:6:6: error: redefinition of ‘void foo()’
void foo() {}
^~~
pr80259-2.C:4:15: note: ‘void foo()’ previously defined here
friend void foo() = delete;
^~~
which looks fine to me. So is the #c0 testcase a redefinition of the function
that should be diagnosed the same way?
For
void foo() {}
inline void foo () {}
we emit:
pr80259-3.C: In function ‘void foo()’:
pr80259-3.C:2:13: error: redefinition of ‘void foo()’
inline void foo () {}
^~~
pr80259-3.C:1:6: note: ‘void foo()’ previously defined here
void foo() {}
^~~
while clang++ emits:
pr80259-3.C:2:13: error: inline declaration of 'foo' follows non-inline
definition
inline void foo () {}
^
pr80259-3.C:1:6: note: previous definition is here
void foo() {}
^
so at least for now I'd say we should just emit a normal redefinition message.
