[Bug c++/9335] repeated diagnostic when maximum template depth is exceeded
--- Comment #20 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-18 14:42 --- (In reply to comment #19) Well, the patch is mostly done, it reduces the output from 11 to 1 lines and it neatly points out where is the recursive instantiation. So I hope you may reconsider, unless you think the 101 lines are useful to the user somehow. 101 lines? Is that a typo? If this change only applies to the case where all 11 lines would be instantiations of the same template I guess it sounds reasonable, though the 11-line output seems a bit clearer as to where the recursion is happening. Perhaps two instantiation lines in this case so we see the first recursion? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9335
[Bug c++/9335] repeated diagnostic when maximum template depth is exceeded
--- Comment #21 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-18 16:16 --- (In reply to comment #20) (In reply to comment #19) Well, the patch is mostly done, it reduces the output from 11 to 1 lines and it neatly points out where is the recursive instantiation. So I hope you may reconsider, unless you think the 101 lines are useful to the user somehow. 101 lines? Is that a typo? Yes, sorry. I meant 11 lines. If this change only applies to the case where all 11 lines would be instantiations of the same template I guess it sounds reasonable, though the 11-line output seems a bit clearer as to where the recursion is happening. Perhaps two instantiation lines in this case so we see the first recursion? My current patch prints: /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: error: template instantiation depth exceeds maximum of 1024 (use -ftemplate-depth= to increase the maximum) instantiating 'struct X-0x00018' /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: recursively instantiated from 'const int X1000::value' /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:4:17: instantiated from here Is that ok or you would prefer the following? /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: error: template instantiation depth exceeds maximum of 1024 (use -ftemplate-depth= to increase the maximum) instantiating 'struct X-0x00018' /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: recursively instantiated from 'const int XN-1::value' /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: recursively instantiated from 'const int X1000::value' /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:4:17: instantiated from here I think with some tinkering I can reach that output but I don't see which useful information provides, since the location of the extra line is the same as the error line and the recursive instantiation line. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9335
[Bug c++/9335] repeated diagnostic when maximum template depth is exceeded
--- Comment #22 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-18 17:09 --- (In reply to comment #21) Is that ok or you would prefer the following? /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: error: template instantiation depth exceeds maximum of 1024 (use -ftemplate-depth= to increase the maximum) instantiating 'struct X-0x00018' /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: recursively instantiated from 'const int XN-1::value' /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: recursively instantiated from 'const int X1000::value' /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:4:17: instantiated from here I was thinking just /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: recursively instantiated from 'const int X999::value' /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: instantiated from 'const int X1000::value' I think seeing one iteration would make it clearer. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9335
[Bug c++/9335] repeated diagnostic when maximum template depth is exceeded
--- Comment #23 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-18 17:40 --- Oh, that is not very difficult to do. But notice that you will still get the last line: /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:4:17: instantiated from here so we go from 11 to 3 lines. I think that is ok. So go ahead, commit your patch and I will update mine to produce that. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9335
[Bug c++/9335] repeated diagnostic when maximum template depth is exceeded
--- Comment #19 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-17 07:59 --- (In reply to comment #18) The output with my patch is wa.C:2:38: error: template instantiation depth exceeds maximum of 1024 (use -ftemplate-depth= to increase the maximum) instantiating �struct X-0x00018� wa.C:2:38: instantiated from �const int X-0x00017::value� wa.C:2:38: instantiated from �const int X-0x00016::value� wa.C:2:38: instantiated from �const int X-0x00015::value� wa.C:2:38: instantiated from �const int X-0x00014::value� wa.C:2:38: instantiated from �const int X-0x00013::value� wa.C:2:38: [ skipping 1014 instantiation contexts ] wa.C:2:38: instantiated from �const int X996::value� wa.C:2:38: instantiated from �const int X997::value� wa.C:2:38: instantiated from �const int X998::value� wa.C:2:38: instantiated from �const int X999::value� wa.C:2:38: instantiated from �const int X1000::value� wa.C:4:17: instantiated from here wa.C:2:38: error: incomplete type �X-0x00018� used in nested name specifier it avoids the error cascade by avoiding all the non-constant initializer errors. I guess your patch just cuts down the instantiated from list to one element? No, to 2 elements, the original instantiation, and the recursive instantiation. /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: error: template instantiation depth exceeds maximum of 1024 (use -ftemplate-depth= to increase the maximum) instantiating �struct X-0x00018� /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: recursively instantiated from �const int X1000::value� /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:4:17: instantiated from here I think the previous change to skip all but 10 is good enough. Well, the patch is mostly done, it reduces the output from 11 to 1 lines and it neatly points out where is the recursive instantiation. So I hope you may reconsider, unless you think the 101 lines are useful to the user somehow. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9335
[Bug c++/9335] repeated diagnostic when maximum template depth is exceeded
--- Comment #16 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 22:07 --- Created an attachment (id=20403) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20403action=view) patch to stop error cascade This patch fixes the repeated error; it turns out I was wrong about this being related to default int. Do you want to experiment more with this patch or should I just check it in? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9335
[Bug c++/9335] repeated diagnostic when maximum template depth is exceeded
--- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 22:24 --- (In reply to comment #16) Created an attachment (id=20403) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20403action=view) [edit] patch to stop error cascade This patch fixes the repeated error; it turns out I was wrong about this being related to default int. Do you want to experiment more with this patch or should I just check it in? I still don't understand why this fixes the problem, but whatever. What is the output with your patch? Do you think that my patch is to emit recursively instantiated would still be useful in general? Should I submit it properly? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9335
[Bug c++/9335] repeated diagnostic when maximum template depth is exceeded
--- Comment #18 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-17 03:53 --- The output with my patch is wa.C:2:38: error: template instantiation depth exceeds maximum of 1024 (use -ftemplate-depth= to increase the maximum) instantiating struct X-0x00018 wa.C:2:38: instantiated from const int X-0x00017::value wa.C:2:38: instantiated from const int X-0x00016::value wa.C:2:38: instantiated from const int X-0x00015::value wa.C:2:38: instantiated from const int X-0x00014::value wa.C:2:38: instantiated from const int X-0x00013::value wa.C:2:38: [ skipping 1014 instantiation contexts ] wa.C:2:38: instantiated from const int X996::value wa.C:2:38: instantiated from const int X997::value wa.C:2:38: instantiated from const int X998::value wa.C:2:38: instantiated from const int X999::value wa.C:2:38: instantiated from const int X1000::value wa.C:4:17: instantiated from here wa.C:2:38: error: incomplete type X-0x00018 used in nested name specifier it avoids the error cascade by avoiding all the non-constant initializer errors. I guess your patch just cuts down the instantiated from list to one element? I think the previous change to skip all but 10 is good enough. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9335
[Bug c++/9335] repeated diagnostic when maximum template depth is exceeded
--- Comment #15 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2010-04-14 10:09 --- Subject: Re: repeated diagnostic when maximum template depth is exceeded When that happens? I am sorry but your answer does not help me to find how to fix this. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9335
[Bug c++/9335] repeated diagnostic when maximum template depth is exceeded
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-13 23:48 --- I have a patch that prints this: /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: error: template instantiation depth exceeds maximum of 1024 (use -ftemplate-depth= to increase the maximum) instantiating struct X-0x00018 /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: recursively instantiated from const int X1000::value /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:4:17: instantiated from here /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: error: incomplete type X-0x00018 used in nested name specifier /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C: In instantiation of const int X-0x00016::value: /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: recursively instantiated from const int X1000::value /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:4:17: instantiated from here /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: error: X-0x00016::value cannot be initialized by a non-constant expression when being declared /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C: In instantiation of const int X-0x00015::value: /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: recursively instantiated from const int X1000::value /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:4:17: instantiated from here /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: error: X-0x00015::value cannot be initialized by a non-constant expression when being declared /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C: In instantiation of const int X-0x00014::value: /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:2:36: recursively instantiated from const int X1000::value /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C:4:17: instantiated from here then continues for 4000 lines It is perhaps an improvement but not a fix. @Jason, I see that in pt.c (instantiate_decl), after we get the first error, then init == error_mark_node. However, the parser continues building the declaration as if nothing. And we end up with something like: var_decl 0x7717bf00 value type integer_type 0x77490f18 int readonly type_6 SI size integer_cst 0x7754d960 constant 32 unit size integer_cst 0x7754d668 constant 4 align 32 symtab 0 alias set -1 canonical type 0x77490f18 precision 32 min integer_cst 0x7754d8e8 -2147483648 max integer_cst 0x7754d910 2147483647\ readonly constant used public static tree_1 tree_2 tree_3 external nonlocal decl_3 decl_6 SI file /home/manuel/src/pr9335.C line 2 col 36 size integer_cst 0x775\ 4d960 32 unit size integer_cst 0x7754d668 4 align 32 context record_type 0x7717ddc8 X initial error_mark 0x77555ca8 template-info 0x77177600 chain type_decl 0x7717e8a0 X Couldn't we abort all this earlier? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9335
[Bug c++/9335] repeated diagnostic when maximum template depth is exceeded
--- Comment #14 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-14 01:41 --- That sounds like another case where trying to recover from an error by changing a problematic type to 'int' doesn't actually improve matters. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9335
[Bug c++/9335] repeated diagnostic when maximum template depth is exceeded
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 01:55 --- The reason why this testcase cannot be solved like bug 23510 is that this testcase produces many repeated: error: template instantiation depth exceeds maximum of 500 (use -ftemplate-depth-NN to increase the maximum) instantiating `struct X500' each of them with their own long list of instantiations. In fact, this could have been detected in the testsuite: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/recurse.C but the testsuite does not detect repeated messages. We should give just one error like Comeau does. This is a regression but I don't know in which version this used to work. -- manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|manu at gcc dot gnu dot org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu ||dot org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Summary|Inordinately long output|repeated diagnostic when |when maximum template depth |maximum template depth is |is exceeded |exceeded http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9335
