Re: [PATCH] c++: implicitly_declare_fn and access checks [PR113908]
On 2/14/24 08:46, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/13/24 11:49, Patrick Palka wrote:
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, are one of
both of these fixes OK for trunk?
-- >8 --
Here during ahead of time checking of the non-dependent new-expr we
synthesize B's copy constructor, which should be defined as deleted
due to A's inaccessible copy constructor. But enforce_access incorrectly
decides to defer the (silent) access check for A::A(const A&) during
synthesization since current_template_parms is still set (before r14-557
it checked processing_template_decl which got cleared from
implicitly_declare_fn), which leads to the access check leaking out to
the template context that needed the synthesization.
This patch narrowly fixes this regression in two sufficient ways:
1. Clear current_template_parms alongside processing_template_decl
in implicitly_declare_fn so that it's more independent of context.
Hmm, perhaps it or synthesized_method_walk should use maybe_push_to_top_level?
That works nicely, and also fixes the other regression PR113332. There
the lambda context triggering synthesization of a default ctor was
causing maybe_dummy_object to misbehave during overload resolution of
one of its member's default ctors, and now synthesization is context
independent.
2. Don't defer a silent access check when in a template context,
since such deferred checks will be replayed noisily at instantiation
time which may not be what the caller intended.
True, but returning a possibly incorrect 'false' is probably also not what the
caller intended. It would be better to see that we never call enforce_access
with tf_none in a template. If that's not feasible, I think we should still
conservatively return true.
Makes sense, I can experiment with that enforce_access access change as
a follow-up.
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
trunk?
OK.
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] c++: synthesized_method_walk context independence [PR113908]
PR c++/113908
PR c++/113332
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* method.cc (synthesized_method_walk): Use maybe_push_to_top_level.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/template/non-dependent31.C: New test.
* g++.dg/template/non-dependent32.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/method.cc | 2 ++
.../g++.dg/template/non-dependent31.C | 18 +
.../g++.dg/template/non-dependent32.C | 20 +++
3 files changed, 40 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent31.C
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent32.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/method.cc b/gcc/cp/method.cc
index 957496d3e18..98c10e6a8b5 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/method.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/method.cc
@@ -2760,6 +2760,7 @@ synthesized_method_walk (tree ctype,
special_function_kind sfk, bool const_p,
return;
}
+ bool push_to_top = maybe_push_to_top_level (TYPE_NAME (ctype));
++cp_unevaluated_operand;
++c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
push_deferring_access_checks (dk_no_deferred);
@@ -2857,6 +2858,7 @@ synthesized_method_walk (tree ctype,
special_function_kind sfk, bool const_p,
pop_deferring_access_checks ();
--cp_unevaluated_operand;
--c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
+ maybe_pop_from_top_level (push_to_top);
}
/* DECL is a defaulted function whose exception specification is now
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent31.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent31.C
new file mode 100644
index 000..3fa68f40fe1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent31.C
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+// PR c++/113908
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct A {
+ A();
+private:
+ A(const A&);
+};
+
+struct B {
+ A a;
+
+ template
+ static void f() { new B(); }
+};
+
+template void B::f();
+static_assert(!__is_constructible(B, const B&), "");
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent32.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent32.C
new file mode 100644
index 000..246654c5b50
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent32.C
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+// PR c++/113332
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct tuple {
+ template
+ static constexpr bool __is_implicitly_default_constructible() { return true;
}
+
+ template()>
+ tuple();
+};
+
+struct DBusStruct {
+private:
+ tuple data_;
+};
+
+struct IBusService {
+ int m = [] { DBusStruct{}; return 42; }();
+};
Re: [PATCH] c++: implicitly_declare_fn and access checks [PR113908]
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 2/13/24 11:49, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, are one of
> > both of these fixes OK for trunk?
> >
> > -- >8 --
> >
> > Here during ahead of time checking of the non-dependent new-expr we
> > synthesize B's copy constructor, which should be defined as deleted
> > due to A's inaccessible copy constructor. But enforce_access incorrectly
> > decides to defer the (silent) access check for A::A(const A&) during
> > synthesization since current_template_parms is still set (before r14-557
> > it checked processing_template_decl which got cleared from
> > implicitly_declare_fn), which leads to the access check leaking out to
> > the template context that needed the synthesization.
> >
> > This patch narrowly fixes this regression in two sufficient ways:
> >
> > 1. Clear current_template_parms alongside processing_template_decl
> > in implicitly_declare_fn so that it's more independent of context.
>
> Hmm, perhaps it or synthesized_method_walk should use maybe_push_to_top_level?
That works nicely, and also fixes the other regression PR113332. There
the lambda context triggering synthesization of a default ctor was
causing maybe_dummy_object to misbehave during overload resolution of
one of its member's default ctors, and now synthesization is context
independent.
>
> > 2. Don't defer a silent access check when in a template context,
> > since such deferred checks will be replayed noisily at instantiation
> > time which may not be what the caller intended.
>
> True, but returning a possibly incorrect 'false' is probably also not what the
> caller intended. It would be better to see that we never call enforce_access
> with tf_none in a template. If that's not feasible, I think we should still
> conservatively return true.
Makes sense, I can experiment with that enforce_access access change as
a follow-up.
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
trunk?
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] c++: synthesized_method_walk context independence [PR113908]
PR c++/113908
PR c++/113332
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* method.cc (synthesized_method_walk): Use maybe_push_to_top_level.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/template/non-dependent31.C: New test.
* g++.dg/template/non-dependent32.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/method.cc | 2 ++
.../g++.dg/template/non-dependent31.C | 18 +
.../g++.dg/template/non-dependent32.C | 20 +++
3 files changed, 40 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent31.C
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent32.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/method.cc b/gcc/cp/method.cc
index 957496d3e18..98c10e6a8b5 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/method.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/method.cc
@@ -2760,6 +2760,7 @@ synthesized_method_walk (tree ctype,
special_function_kind sfk, bool const_p,
return;
}
+ bool push_to_top = maybe_push_to_top_level (TYPE_NAME (ctype));
++cp_unevaluated_operand;
++c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
push_deferring_access_checks (dk_no_deferred);
@@ -2857,6 +2858,7 @@ synthesized_method_walk (tree ctype,
special_function_kind sfk, bool const_p,
pop_deferring_access_checks ();
--cp_unevaluated_operand;
--c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
+ maybe_pop_from_top_level (push_to_top);
}
/* DECL is a defaulted function whose exception specification is now
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent31.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent31.C
new file mode 100644
index 000..3fa68f40fe1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent31.C
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+// PR c++/113908
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct A {
+ A();
+private:
+ A(const A&);
+};
+
+struct B {
+ A a;
+
+ template
+ static void f() { new B(); }
+};
+
+template void B::f();
+static_assert(!__is_constructible(B, const B&), "");
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent32.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent32.C
new file mode 100644
index 000..246654c5b50
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent32.C
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+// PR c++/113332
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct tuple {
+ template
+ static constexpr bool __is_implicitly_default_constructible() { return true;
}
+
+ template()>
+ tuple();
+};
+
+struct DBusStruct {
+private:
+ tuple data_;
+};
+
+struct IBusService {
+ int m = [] { DBusStruct{}; return 42; }();
+};
--
2.44.0.rc0.46.g2996f11c1d
Re: [PATCH] c++: implicitly_declare_fn and access checks [PR113908]
On 2/13/24 11:49, Patrick Palka wrote: Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, are one of both of these fixes OK for trunk? -- >8 -- Here during ahead of time checking of the non-dependent new-expr we synthesize B's copy constructor, which should be defined as deleted due to A's inaccessible copy constructor. But enforce_access incorrectly decides to defer the (silent) access check for A::A(const A&) during synthesization since current_template_parms is still set (before r14-557 it checked processing_template_decl which got cleared from implicitly_declare_fn), which leads to the access check leaking out to the template context that needed the synthesization. This patch narrowly fixes this regression in two sufficient ways: 1. Clear current_template_parms alongside processing_template_decl in implicitly_declare_fn so that it's more independent of context. Hmm, perhaps it or synthesized_method_walk should use maybe_push_to_top_level? 2. Don't defer a silent access check when in a template context, since such deferred checks will be replayed noisily at instantiation time which may not be what the caller intended. True, but returning a possibly incorrect 'false' is probably also not what the caller intended. It would be better to see that we never call enforce_access with tf_none in a template. If that's not feasible, I think we should still conservatively return true. Jason
