This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[C++ PATCH] Another maybe_constant_value without fold_non_dependent* (PR c++/56895)
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:13:07 +0200
- Subject: [C++ PATCH] Another maybe_constant_value without fold_non_dependent* (PR c++/56895)
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Hi!
Hopefully last problematic spot, other places where maybe_constant_value
calls have been introduced are either guarded with
!processing_template_decl, or I haven't succeeded in triggering ICEs (say in
build_new_1).
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2013-04-11 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR c++/56895
* call.c (null_ptr_cst_p): Call fold_non_dependent_expr_sfinae before
calling maybe_constant_value for C++98.
* g++.dg/template/arrow4.C: New test.
--- gcc/cp/call.c.jj 2013-04-02 20:24:34.000000000 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/call.c 2013-04-11 09:55:05.408797608 +0200
@@ -555,7 +555,7 @@ null_ptr_cst_p (tree t)
{
/* Core issue 903 says only literal 0 is a null pointer constant. */
if (cxx_dialect < cxx0x)
- t = maybe_constant_value (t);
+ t = maybe_constant_value (fold_non_dependent_expr_sfinae (t, tf_none));
STRIP_NOPS (t);
if (integer_zerop (t) && !TREE_OVERFLOW (t))
return true;
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/arrow4.C.jj 2013-04-11 09:54:10.803117048 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/arrow4.C 2013-04-11 09:56:28.007313310 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+// PR c++/56895
+// { dg-do compile }
+
+void fn (int *);
+void fn (int);
+extern struct A { bool foo (); A bar (); } *a;
+
+template <int>
+void
+baz ()
+{
+ fn (a->bar().foo() ? 1 : 0);
+}
+
+void
+test ()
+{
+ baz<0> ();
+}
Jakub