On Tuesday, February 10th, 2026 at 4:49 PM, Marek Polacek <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 03:26:37PM +0000, Boris Staletic wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 10th, 2026 at 2:05 PM, Jason Merrill 
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Snipped older discussions for brevity.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Here's a v2 of the patch, bootstrapped and tested on 
> > > > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> > > > -- >8 --
> > > > In case of expressions like `&[:expr:]` where `expr` depends on a
> > > > template parameter, and the splice expression represents a `FIELD_DECL` 
> > > > or
> > > > a non-static member `FUNCTION_DECL`, that's exactly what we'd pass on.
> > > > However, `build_x_unary_op()` for these expressions is expecting an
> > > > `OFFSET_REF`. `OFFSET_REF` is also what gets passed to
> > > > `build_x_unary_op()` when templates are not involved.
> > > >
> > > > There's also a difference between the template argument being a type and
> > > > using `members_of()` to get to the reflections of members (in which case
> > > > evaluating the `SPLICE_EXPR` returns a `FUNCTION_DECL` - `splice10.C`
> > > > test) and passing `^^T::member` as the template argument (in which case
> > > > evaluating the `SPLICE_EXPR` returns a `BASELINK` - `splice11.C`).
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Boris Staletic [email protected]
> > > >
> > > > PR c++/123660
> > > > PR c++/123661
> > > >
> > > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> > > >
> > > > * pt.cc (tsubst_splice_expr): Handle pointers to non-static members
> > > > from splice expressions
> > > >
> > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > > >
> > > > * g++.dg/reflect/splice10.C: New test.
> > > > * g++.dg/reflect/splice11.C: New test.
> > > > ---
> > > > gcc/cp/pt.cc | 14 ++++++++++++
> > > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/reflect/splice10.C | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/reflect/splice11.C | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 3 files changed, 71 insertions(+)
> > > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/reflect/splice10.C
> > > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/reflect/splice11.C
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.cc b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
> > > > index 049bbf07e0..0c0076c9a4 100644
> > > > --- a/gcc/cp/pt.cc
> > > > +++ b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
> > > > @@ -16755,6 +16755,20 @@ tsubst_splice_expr (tree t, tree args, 
> > > > tsubst_flags_t complain, tree in_decl)
> > > > op = splice (op);
> > > > if (op == error_mark_node)
> > > > return error_mark_node;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (SPLICE_EXPR_ADDRESS_P (t) && !TREE_STATIC (TREE_TYPE (op)))
> > >
> > >
> > > TREE_STATIC on a type isn't meaningful, the checks below are enough.
> >
> > I thought that was fishy... You're right, everything works without that 
> > check.
> >
> > >
> > > > + {
> > > > + if (TREE_CODE (op) == BASELINK
> > > > + && TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (op)) == METHOD_TYPE)
> > >
> > >
> > > It shouldn't be necessary to check for METHOD_TYPE; any class member is
> > > suitable for passing to build_offset_ref. If the argument is static,
> > > it'll return it unchanged rather than actually build an OFFSET_REF.
> >
> > If I drop the METHOD_TYPE check, I get an ICE in both splice10.C and 
> > splice11.C.
> > splice10.C ICEs when calling `build_offset_ref()` on a static member 
> > function (s::get_y).
> > splice11.C ICEs when calling `build_offset_ref()` on a free function (::f).
> >
> > That's why I was initially looking for a way to do this only for non-static 
> > members.
> 
> I think Jason meant the check for METHOD_TYPE for a BASELINK, which
> is certainly not needed.  Please also use BASELINK_P instead of
> TREE_CODE == BASELINK.
> 
> We shouldn't call build_offset_ref on static member functions or
> free functions.  So I think the second call to build_offset_ref
> should be guarded by
> 
>   TREE_CODE (op) == FIELD_DECL || DECL_OBJECT_MEMBER_FUNCTION_P (op)
> 
> But maybe Jason prefers something else.
> 
> 
> I would also move the SPLICE_EXPR_ADDRESS_P block after checking
> dependent_splice_p and after check_splice_expr.

Okay, all of that works. One question:
Would it be more correct to guard the whole block with

if (SPLICE_EXPR_ADDRESS_P (t))

or

if (SPLICE_EXPR_ADDRESS_P (op))

Given what's in the dependent_splice_p block, I'm thinking latter, but I'm not 
sure.

> 
> > In case of free functions in splice11.C, the ICE happens here:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/cp/init.cc;h=437797fef0c637b5a7d988eee8f8b5c710bd2d11;hb=HEAD#l2428
> >
> > In case of static member functions in splice10.C, we get a bit further, 
> > here's the traceback:
> >
> > splice10.C: In instantiation of ‘constexpr auto test() [with T = s; long 
> > unsigned int I = 1]’:
> > required from here
> > splice10.C:25:27:
> >    25 | static_assert(test<s, 1uz>() == &s::get_y);
> >       |               ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~
> > splice10.C:21:10: internal compiler error: in build_ptrmem_type, at 
> > cp/decl.cc:12978
> >    21 |   return &[:members_of(^^T, ctx)[I]:];
> >       |          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 0x2a92a3f internal_error(char const*, ...)
> >         ../../gcc/diagnostic-global-context.cc:787
> > 0xaff8c1 fancy_abort(char const*, int, char const*)
> >         ../../gcc/diagnostics/context.cc:1812
> > 0x7b9b70 build_ptrmem_type(tree_node*, tree_node*)
> >         ../../gcc/cp/decl.cc:12978
> > 0xe4b7a9 cp_build_addr_expr_1
> >         ../../gcc/cp/typeck.cc:7638
> > 0xe4c728 cp_build_addr_expr_strict
> >         ../../gcc/cp/typeck.cc:7726
> > 0xe4c728 build_x_unary_op(unsigned long, tree_code, cp_expr, tree_node*, 
> > int)
> >         ../../gcc/cp/typeck.cc:7318
> > 0xd859b6 tsubst_expr(tree_node*, tree_node*, int, tree_node*)
> >         ../../gcc/cp/pt.cc:21470
> > 0xdb36bf tsubst_stmt
> >         ../../gcc/cp/pt.cc:20614
> > 0xdb49e3 tsubst_stmt
> >         ../../gcc/cp/pt.cc:19397
> > 0xdb49a0 tsubst_stmt
> >         ../../gcc/cp/pt.cc:19387
> > 0xdb50ed tsubst_stmt
> >         ../../gcc/cp/pt.cc:19808
> > 0xdbc4a6 tsubst_stmt
> >         ../../gcc/cp/pt.cc:19373
> > 0xdbc4a6 instantiate_body
> >         ../../gcc/cp/pt.cc:28418
> > 0xdbd27c instantiate_decl(tree_node*, bool, bool)
> >         ../../gcc/cp/pt.cc:28711
> > 0xc156e0 maybe_instantiate_decl(tree_node*)
> >         ../../gcc/cp/decl2.cc:6432
> > 0xc156e0 maybe_instantiate_decl(tree_node*)
> >         ../../gcc/cp/decl2.cc:6420
> > 0xc17587 mark_used(tree_node*, int)
> >         ../../gcc/cp/decl2.cc:6788
> > 0xb17c1b build_over_call
> >         ../../gcc/cp/call.cc:11024
> > 0xb2c405 build_new_function_call(tree_node*, vec<tree_node*, va_gc, 
> > vl_embed>**, int)
> >         ../../gcc/cp/call.cc:5310
> > 0xdfbc09 finish_call_expr(tree_node*, vec<tree_node*, va_gc, vl_embed>**, 
> > bool, bool, int)
> >         ../../gcc/cp/semantics.cc:3542
> >
> 
> Marek
> 
>

Reply via email to