On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:26:01PM +0100, Kai Tietz wrote:
> > @@ -2935,7 +2935,7 @@ cxx_eval_constant_expression (const constexpr_ctx
> > *ctx, tree t,
> > constexpr_ctx new_ctx;
> > tree r = t;
> >
> > - if (t == error_mark_node)
> > + if (t == NULL_TREE || t == error_mark_node)
> > {
> > *non_constant_p = true;
> > return t;
>
> Just one nit. Shouldn't we return here always error_mark_node instead?
Oops, I think so.
2015-02-26 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
PR c++/65202
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression): Handle null tree.
* g++.dg/cpp1y/pr65202.C: New test.
diff --git gcc/cp/constexpr.c gcc/cp/constexpr.c
index 32a23ff7..84209de 100644
--- gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -2935,10 +2935,10 @@ cxx_eval_constant_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx,
tree t,
constexpr_ctx new_ctx;
tree r = t;
- if (t == error_mark_node)
+ if (t == NULL_TREE || t == error_mark_node)
{
*non_constant_p = true;
- return t;
+ return error_mark_node;
}
if (CONSTANT_CLASS_P (t))
{
diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr65202.C
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr65202.C
index e69de29..602b264 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr65202.C
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr65202.C
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+// // PR c++/65202
+// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } }
+
+template <typename T> struct is_move_constructible;
+template <typename T> struct is_move_assignable;
+template <int, typename T> using enable_if_t = int;
+namespace adl {
+template <
+ typename L, typename R,
+ enable_if_t<is_move_constructible<L>() && is_move_assignable<L>(), int>...>
+constexpr auto adl_swap(L &l, R &r) -> decltype(swap(l, r)) {
+ return;
+}
+template <typename L, typename R>
+auto swap(L &l, R &r) noexcept(noexcept(adl::adl_swap(l, r)))
+ -> decltype(adl::adl_swap(l, r));
+namespace ns {
+template <typename T> struct foo {};
+template <typename T> void swap(foo<T> &, foo<T> &);
+struct bar;
+
+int main()
+{
+ foo<ns::bar> f;
+ adl::swap(f, f)
+} // { dg-error "" }
Marek
