This patch fixes PR c++/72759. The problem seems to be that when instantiating a variable template, we fail to propagate error_mark_node when its template arguments are erroneous, and we instead build a bogus TEMPLATE_ID_EXPR which later confuses check_initializer(). Does this look OK to commit after bootstrap + regtesting?
gcc/cp/ChangeLog: PR c++/72759 * pt.c (tsubst_qualified_id): Return error_mark_node if template_args is error_mark_node. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR c++/72759 * g++.dg/cpp1y/pr72759.C: New test. --- gcc/cp/pt.c | 3 +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr72759.C | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr72759.C diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.c b/gcc/cp/pt.c index a23a05a..6b70a65 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/pt.c +++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c @@ -13907,6 +13907,9 @@ tsubst_qualified_id (tree qualified_id, tree args, if (is_template) { + if (template_args == error_mark_node) + return error_mark_node; + if (variable_template_p (expr)) expr = lookup_and_finish_template_variable (expr, template_args, complain); diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr72759.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr72759.C new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4af6ea4 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr72759.C @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +// PR c++/72759 +// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } } + +template <typename> struct SpecPerType; +class Specializer { + public: template <bool> static void MbrFnTempl(); + template <unsigned> struct A { static void InnerMemberFn(); }; + void Trigger() { A<0>::InnerMemberFn; } +}; +template <> struct SpecPerType<Specializer> { + using FnType = void *; + template <bool P> + static constexpr FnType SpecMbrFnPtr = Specializer::MbrFnTempl<P>; +}; +template <unsigned X> void Specializer::A<X>::InnerMemberFn() { + using Spec = SpecPerType<Specializer>; + Spec ErrorSite = Spec::SpecMbrFnPtr<SpecMbrFnPtr>; // { dg-error "not declared" } +} -- 2.9.2.564.g4d4f0b7