This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[C++ PATCH] PR c++/87093
- From: Ville Voutilainen <ville dot voutilainen at gmail dot com>
- To: gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 01:02:33 +0300
- Subject: [C++ PATCH] PR c++/87093
Tested manually on Linux-x64, running full suite on Linux-PPC64. This
seems half-obvious. OK for trunk? Backports?
2018-09-10 Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
gcc/cp
PR c++/87093
* method.c (constructible_expr): We're in an unevaluated context
in all cases, not just for class targets.
testsuite/
PR c++/87093
* g++.dg/ext/is_constructible2.C: New.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/method.c b/gcc/cp/method.c
index 0b208a8..d75dacb 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/method.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/method.c
@@ -1144,11 +1144,11 @@ static tree
constructible_expr (tree to, tree from)
{
tree expr;
+ cp_unevaluated cp_uneval_guard;
if (CLASS_TYPE_P (to))
{
tree ctype = to;
vec<tree, va_gc> *args = NULL;
- cp_unevaluated cp_uneval_guard;
if (!TYPE_REF_P (to))
to = cp_build_reference_type (to, /*rval*/false);
tree ob = build_stub_object (to);
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/is_constructible2.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/is_constructible2.C
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8f25e7e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ext/is_constructible2.C
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+#include <type_traits>
+
+template <typename T> struct x {
+ operator bool() {
+ static_assert(!std::is_same<T, T>::value, "");
+ return false;
+ }
+};
+
+static constexpr auto a = __is_constructible(bool, x<int>);