http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56104
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-25
14:57:47 UTC ---
Guess the relevant change in the patch is:
--- trunk/gcc/cp/typeck.c 2011/07/19 13:28:15 176460
+++ trunk/gcc/cp/typeck.c 2011/07/19 14:01:59 176461
@@ -3078,8 +3078,7 @@
return error_mark_node;
}
/* ...and then the delta in the PMF. */
- instance_ptr = build2 (POINTER_PLUS_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (instance_ptr),
- instance_ptr, fold_convert (sizetype, delta));
+ instance_ptr = fold_build_pointer_plus (instance_ptr, delta);
/* Hand back the adjusted 'this' argument to our caller. */
*instance_ptrptr = instance_ptr;
where we didn't fold the POINTER_PLUS_EXPR in this case before (delta is 0
here), but now we do.
The above is followed by:
/* Next extract the vtable pointer from the object. */
vtbl = build1 (NOP_EXPR, build_pointer_type (vtbl_ptr_type_node),
instance_ptr);
vtbl = cp_build_indirect_ref (vtbl, RO_NULL, complain);
if (vtbl == error_mark_node)
return error_mark_node;
and during cp_build_indirect_ref this warns, instance_ptr here is ADDR_EXPR of
cc VAR_DECL, and as the class type of cc isn't virtual, it doesn't have a
vtable pointer at the beginning.
