[Bug c++/37146] [4.4 Regression] Invalid types with COND_EXPR

[dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-09-10 14:50 -------
At PDF page 115, 5.16.6 (conditional operator), the standard says:

"Lvalue-to-rvalue (4.1), array-to-pointer (4.2), and function-to-pointer (4.3)
standard conversions are performed on the second and third operands. After
those conversions, one of the following shall hold:"

— The second and third operands have the same type; the result is of that type.

— The second and third operands have arithmetic or enumeration type; the usual
arithmetic conversions are performed to bring them to a common type, and the
result is of that type.

[...]
"

We should actualy fall into the case of "the second and third operands have
arithmetic or enumeration type ...", but we are not. And that is the bug, I
think.

Instead, we are considering earlier that arg2 and arg3 have the same type --
which I believe is not true. We are considering that because the condition
if (real_lvalue_p (arg2)                                                     
      && real_lvalue_p (arg3)                                                  
      && same_type_p (arg2_type, arg3_type))                                   
    {
[...]
is true.

We are considering that arg2 and arg3 have the same type because we think
same_type_p (arg2_type, arg3_type) should be enough to determine their type
equality. But in this particular case, it's not because arg2_type and arg3_type
lost the information about the bit-field type and size of arg2 and arg3.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37146