[Bug c++/84582] [8 Regression] Rejected valid C++ code since r257961

[mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84582

--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> > Given:
> > class C {
> >   static const long b = 0;
> >   static const unsigned c = (b);
> > };
> > class D {
> >   static const long b = 0;
> >   static const unsigned c = b;
> > };
> > template <class> class A {
> >   static const long b = 0;
> >   static const unsigned c = (b);
> > };
> > template <class> class B {
> >   static const long b = 0;
> >   static const unsigned c = b;
> > };
> > 
> > we only reject the A case.
> > For D and B there is just INTEGER_CST, and for C and A we have:
> > (unsigned int) (long int) *(const long int &) &b
> > because of the parens.
> > The reason why it is accepted outside of template and not inside of it is
> > that
> > cxx_constant_init calls is_nondependent_static_init_expression which calls
> > instantiation_dependent_expression_p and that is true in A::c.
> 
> Right, because &b is value-dependent.  I guess force_paren_expr can't do
> that transformation in a template.

So do you think that we don't want the patch in Comment 3?