On Wed, 26 Nov 2025, Marek Polacek wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 01:29:35PM -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2025, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 26 Nov 2025, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 08:20:10PM -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 24 Nov 2025, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk/15?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -- >8 --
> > > > > > In my r15-6792 patch I added a call to tsubst in tsubst_pack_index
> > > > > > to fully instantiate args#N in the pack.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Here we are in an unevaluated context, but since the pack is
> > > > > > a TREE_VEC, we call tsubst_template_args which has cp_evaluated
> > > > > > at the beginning.  That causes a crash because we trip on the
> > > > > > assert in tsubst_expr/PARM_DECL:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >   gcc_assert (cp_unevaluated_operand);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > because retrieve_local_specialization didn't find anything (becase
> > > > > > there are no local_specializations yet).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ISTM that we don't need a full instantiation in an unevaluated 
> > > > > > context
> > > > > > so we can avoid the crash like this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hmm, it doesn't seem right to avoid doing a substitution solely 
> > > > > because
> > > > > we're in an unevaluated context..
> > > > > 
> > > > > Here the TREE_VEC is just a subexpression of the templated
> > > > > PACK_INDEX_EXPR, not a template argument list, so we should still
> > > > > substitute it normally, just without setting cp_evaluated, I think.
> > > > 
> > > > I think you're right.  How about I just walk the TREE_VEC and subst
> > > > each element, like this?
> > > 
> > > In-place modification of a templated tree is unusual for tsubst, we
> > > probably should just return a new TREE_VEC.  I think we could use a
> > > version of tsubst_template_args that doesn't do cp_evaluated
> > > (tsubst_tree_vec?), define tsubst_template_args in terms of that, and
> > > also use it here?
> > 
> > Actually never mind about the idea of defining tsubst_template_args
> > in terms of tsubst_tree_vec... tsubst_template_args does a lot of
> > stuff that's specific to template arguments which wouldn't be suitable
> > for TREE_VEC expression substitution.  I suppose we could just use a
> > standalone tsubst_tree_vec routine that tsubsts each element and returns
> > a new TREE_VEC.
>  
> Fair enough.
> 
> > (I believe TRAIT_EXPR is another tree that has a TREE_VEC subexpression
> > and probably has a similiar bug wrt cp_evaluated being set, so we could
> > use tsubst_tree_vec there as well.)
> 
> I've not done that yet.
> 
> How does this look?  Thanks,
> 
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?

OK, thanks!

> 
> -- >8 --
> In my r15-6792 patch I added a call to tsubst in tsubst_pack_index
> to fully instantiate args#N in the pack.
> 
> Here we are in an unevaluated context, but since the pack is
> a TREE_VEC, we call tsubst_template_args which has cp_evaluated
> at the beginning.  That causes a crash because we trip on the
> assert in tsubst_expr/PARM_DECL:
> 
>   gcc_assert (cp_unevaluated_operand);
> 
> because retrieve_local_specialization didn't find anything (becase
> there are no local_specializations yet).
> 
> We can avoid the cp_evaluated by calling the new tsubst_tree_vec,
> which creates a new TREE_VEC and substitutes each element.
> 
>       PR c++/121325
> 
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> 
>       * pt.cc (tsubst_tree_vec): New.
>       (tsubst_pack_index): Call it.
> 
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> 
>       * g++.dg/cpp26/pack-indexing18.C: New test.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Patrick Palka <[email protected]>
> ---
>  gcc/cp/pt.cc                                 | 21 ++++++++++++-
>  gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp26/pack-indexing18.C | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>  create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp26/pack-indexing18.C
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.cc b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
> index e74e34d8149..4dc8f980d0d 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/pt.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
> @@ -14203,6 +14203,25 @@ tsubst_pack_expansion (tree t, tree args, 
> tsubst_flags_t complain,
>    return result;
>  }
>  
> +/* Substitute ARGS into T, which is a TREE_VEC.  This function creates a new
> +   TREE_VEC rather than substituting the elements in-place.  */
> +
> +static tree
> +tsubst_tree_vec (tree t, tree args, tsubst_flags_t complain, tree in_decl)
> +{
> +  const int len = TREE_VEC_LENGTH (t);
> +  tree r = make_tree_vec (len);
> +  for (int i = 0; i < len; ++i)
> +    {
> +      tree arg = TREE_VEC_ELT (t, i);
> +      if (TYPE_P (arg))
> +     TREE_VEC_ELT (r, i) = tsubst (arg, args, complain, in_decl);
> +      else
> +     TREE_VEC_ELT (r, i) = tsubst_expr (arg, args, complain, in_decl);
> +    }
> +  return r;
> +}
> +
>  /* Substitute ARGS into T, which is a pack index (i.e., PACK_INDEX_TYPE or
>     PACK_INDEX_EXPR).  Returns a single type or expression, a PACK_INDEX_*
>     node if only a partial substitution could be performed, or ERROR_MARK_NODE
> @@ -14220,7 +14239,7 @@ tsubst_pack_index (tree t, tree args, tsubst_flags_t 
> complain, tree in_decl)
>        a partially instantiated closure.  Let tsubst find the
>        fully-instantiated one.  */
>        gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (pack) == TREE_VEC);
> -      pack = tsubst (pack, args, complain, in_decl);
> +      pack = tsubst_tree_vec (pack, args, complain, in_decl);
>      }
>    if (TREE_CODE (pack) == TREE_VEC && TREE_VEC_LENGTH (pack) == 0)
>      {
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp26/pack-indexing18.C 
> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp26/pack-indexing18.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..d3e3730408c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp26/pack-indexing18.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> +// PR c++/121325
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++26 } }
> +
> +void f(auto... a) requires requires { []<int i = 0> 
> noexcept(noexcept(a...[i])) { }(); } {}
> +void g(auto... a) requires requires { []<int i = 0> { 
> static_assert(noexcept(a...[i])); }(); } {}
> +
> +void
> +h ()
> +{
> +  f (0);
> +  g (0);
> +}
> +
> +void foo () {}
> +void bar () noexcept {}
> +template<bool B>
> +void baz () noexcept(B) {}
> +
> +template<typename... Ts>
> +void
> +x (Ts... ts) noexcept (noexcept (ts...[0]()))
> +{
> +}
> +
> +void
> +y ()
> +{
> +  static_assert (!noexcept (x (foo)));
> +  static_assert (noexcept (x (bar)));
> +  static_assert (noexcept (x (baz<true>)));
> +  static_assert (!noexcept (x (baz<false>)));
> +}
> 
> base-commit: e97550a7d0e1a8b31a76b0877c0e90a0163da7ee
> -- 
> 2.51.1
> 
> 

Reply via email to