https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107148
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Joseph S. Myers ---
The following test produces the same ICE without any prior errors. I'm not sure
if a statement expression should be considered valid in this context, or if
that indicates that an earlier error is needed. Compile this test with
-fimplicit-constexpr (thus, needs GCC 12 or later, so this test does not show a
regression, unlike the ICE-on-invalid regression in the original bug report).
int f(int);
class A {
public:
A(int);
};
class C {
C() : m(f(({ int x = 1; x; }))) {}
A m;
};
Alternatively, not needing -fimplicit-constexpr (rejected by GCC 10 and before;
GCC 11 and later ICE; so again not showing a regression):
int f(int);
class A {
public:
A(int);
};
class C {
constexpr C() : m(f(({ int x = 1; x; }))) {}
A m;
};
The failing assertion is
gcc_assert (VAR_P (*p) && DECL_ARTIFICIAL (*p) && !TREE_STATIC (*p));
where *p is the variable x in the statement expression, so fails
DECL_ARTIFICIAL. If this test is valid, I don't know if it should reach the
code with this assertion (or what additional issues might arise if the variable
in the statement expression were declared static).
