[Bug c++/87897] [9 Regression] ICE in maybe_constant_value, at cp/constexpr.c:5255 since r265788
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87897 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Fixed by r266816 aka PR85569 fix. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 85569 ***
[Bug c++/87897] [9 Regression] ICE in maybe_constant_value, at cp/constexpr.c:5255 since r265788
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87897 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Dec 5 08:43:12 2018 New Revision: 266818 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266818=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/87897 * g++.dg/init/const13.C: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/const13.C Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug c++/87897] [9 Regression] ICE in maybe_constant_value, at cp/constexpr.c:5255 since r265788
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87897
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly cleaned up testcase:
typedef struct A {} B;
A const a = B ();
The problem is that we have a TARGET_EXPR with B type and an empty CONSTRUCTOR
with B type, then cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr is processing it,
5111 if (TREE_CODE (r) == CONSTRUCTOR && CLASS_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (r)))
5112{
5113 r = adjust_temp_type (type, r);
5114 if (TREE_CODE (t) == TARGET_EXPR
5115 && TARGET_EXPR_INITIAL (t) == r)
5116return t;
5117 else if (TREE_CODE (t) != CONSTRUCTOR)
5118{
5119 r = get_target_expr (r);
5120 TREE_CONSTANT (r) = true;
5121}
and then in the caller
5259 r = cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr (t, true, true, false, decl);
5260 gcc_checking_assert (r == t
5261 || CONVERT_EXPR_P (t)
5262 || TREE_CODE (t) == VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR
5263 || (TREE_CONSTANT (t) && !TREE_CONSTANT (r))
5264 || !cp_tree_equal (r, t));
For A const a = A (); adjust_temp_type returns the passed r and thus r == t in
the caller, but for A const a = B (); adjust_temp_type creates a new
CONSTRUCTOR (with A type), also a new TARGET_EXPR because of that, but both are
cp_tree_equal, as it doesn't care about exact type as long as it has
same_type_p.
So, shall adjust_temp_type not bother if it is same_type_p, or shall the assert
be adjusted, or shall we adjust the type earlier already? The assert is there
already since r166166.
[Bug c++/87897] [9 Regression] ICE in maybe_constant_value, at cp/constexpr.c:5255 since r265788
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87897 Pavel Roskin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||proski at gnu dot org --- Comment #3 from Pavel Roskin --- Confirmed with the current revision. Compiling a program using Boost.Spirit, Boost 1.61. /usr/local/include/boost/spirit/home/support/argument.hpp:202:5: internal compiler error: in maybe_constant_value, at cp/constexpr.c:5260 202 | BOOST_PP_REPEAT_FROM_TO( | ^~~ 0x5c9842 maybe_constant_value(tree_node*, tree_node*) /home/roskinp/src/gcc/gcc/cp/constexpr.c:5260 0xa03aec store_init_value(tree_node*, tree_node*, vec**, int) /home/roskinp/src/gcc/gcc/cp/typeck2.c:825 0x897b62 check_initializer /home/roskinp/src/gcc/gcc/cp/decl.c:6486
[Bug c++/87897] [9 Regression] ICE in maybe_constant_value, at cp/constexpr.c:5255 since r265788
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87897 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2018-11-06 CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Confirmed.
[Bug c++/87897] [9 Regression] ICE in maybe_constant_value, at cp/constexpr.c:5255 since r265788
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87897
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
One more test-case:
$ cat ice.ii
struct c {
int b;
};
struct e : c {
constexpr e() : c{} {}
};
using d = e;
const int ((2, d{}).b);
$ g++ ice.ii -c
ice.ii:8:24: internal compiler error: in build_target_expr_with_type, at
cp/tree.c:793
8 | const int ((2, d{}).b);
|^
0x67a78d build_target_expr_with_type(tree_node*, tree_node*, int)
../../gcc/cp/tree.c:793
0x887963 cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr
../../gcc/cp/constexpr.c:5110
0x88accc maybe_constant_init_1
../../gcc/cp/constexpr.c:5371
0x859d10 set_up_extended_ref_temp
../../gcc/cp/call.c:11144
0x859d10 extend_ref_init_temps_1
../../gcc/cp/call.c:11304
0xa217f7 store_init_value(tree_node*, tree_node*, vec**, int)
../../gcc/cp/typeck2.c:815
0x8b334d check_initializer
../../gcc/cp/decl.c:6486
0x8cb79c cp_finish_decl(tree_node*, tree_node*, bool, tree_node*, int)
../../gcc/cp/decl.c:7162
0x96776b cp_parser_init_declarator
../../gcc/cp/parser.c:20033
0x96f203 cp_parser_simple_declaration
../../gcc/cp/parser.c:13219
0x974262 cp_parser_declaration
../../gcc/cp/parser.c:12916
0x974a0c cp_parser_translation_unit
../../gcc/cp/parser.c:4668
0x974a0c c_parse_file()
../../gcc/cp/parser.c:39266
0xa77000 c_common_parse_file()
../../gcc/c-family/c-opts.c:1150
[Bug c++/87897] [9 Regression] ICE in maybe_constant_value, at cp/constexpr.c:5255 since r265788
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87897 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||8.2.0 Target Milestone|--- |9.0 Known to fail||9.0
