[Bug c++/94751] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE on invalid code in maybe_instantiate_noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94751 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- Fixed in GCC 11.
[Bug c++/94751] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE on invalid code in maybe_instantiate_noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94751 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d4e0bdbc036644401f9de49f594b2bb16b287381 commit r11-7835-gd4e0bdbc036644401f9de49f594b2bb16b287381 Author: Marek Polacek Date: Fri Mar 5 15:46:50 2021 -0500 c++: ICE on invalid with inheriting constructors [PR94751] This is an ICE on invalid where we crash because since r269032 we keep error_mark_node around instead of using noexcept_false_spec when things go wrong; see the walk_field_subobs hunk. We crash in deduce_inheriting_ctor which calls synthesized_method_walk to deduce the exception-specification, but fails to do so in this case, because the testcase is invalid so get_nsdmi returns error_mark_node for the member 'c', and per r269032 the error_mark_node propagates back to deduce_inheriting_ctor which subsequently calls build_exception_variant whereon we crash. I think we should return early if the deduction fails and I decided to call mark_used to get an error right away instead of hoping that it would get called later. My worry is that we could forget that there was an error and think that we just deduced noexcept(false). And then I noticed that the test still crashes in C++98. Here again we failed to deduce the exception-specification in implicitly_declare_fn, but nothing reported an error between synthesized_method_walk and the assert. Well, not much we can do except calling synthesized_method_walk again, this time in the verbose mode and making sure that we did get an error. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: PR c++/94751 * call.c (build_over_call): Maybe call mark_used in case deduce_inheriting_ctor fails and return error_mark_node. * cp-tree.h (deduce_inheriting_ctor): Adjust declaration. * method.c (deduce_inheriting_ctor): Return bool if the deduction fails. (implicitly_declare_fn): If raises is error_mark_node, call synthesized_method_walk with diag being true. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR c++/94751 * g++.dg/cpp0x/inh-ctor37.C: New test.
[Bug c++/94751] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE on invalid code in maybe_instantiate_noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94751 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Patch posted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/566369.html Also note https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98352#c2
[Bug c++/94751] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE on invalid code in maybe_instantiate_noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94751 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- Actually Comment 3 test is unrelated to the original issue here. Comment 3 will be fixed by my PR98659 fix, but not the original issue.
[Bug c++/94751] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE on invalid code in maybe_instantiate_noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94751 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- I posted a patch for this which fixes this test too.
[Bug c++/94751] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE on invalid code in maybe_instantiate_noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94751
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
Reduced code is:
template struct c { static constexpr int d = a; };
template struct e;
template struct e { typedef f g; };
template f aa();
class h {
public:
template void ab(i *, j...) { i(j()...); }
};
template using k = h;
template class l : public k {};
template struct m;
template struct m> {
using n = l;
using o = f *;
template using p = l;
template static void ab(n ac, i q, j...) {
ac.ab(q, j()...);
}
};
template struct r;
struct s : m>> {
struct ad {
typedef p> ae;
};
};
template struct af;
template using ag = typename af::g;
template class ah {};
template struct af> { typedef ai g;
};
template ag> ak(ah);
class al {
public:
template void operator=(w);
};
struct am {
struct an {
s::o ao;
};
struct : s::ad::ae, an {
} ap;
};
template class x : am {
public:
template s aq(j &&...);
};
template
template
s x::aq(j &&...) {
s::ab(ap, ap.ao, aa()...);
}
template class as;
template struct r {
int au;
r(at...);
template void aw(av);
};
class y {
public:
static constexpr struct {
template typename e::d, ax>::g ay();
template static typename e::d, ax>::g ay();
} az{};
};
template struct z {
static void bb() {
ah b;
ak(b) = y::az.ay;
}
};
template void be(bc, bd) { z<0>::bb; }
template r::r(at...) { aw(y::az); }
template template void r::aw(av ac) {
be(au, ac);
}
template class as {
public:
as ();
x bg;
};
template as ::bf() {
ax t;
bg.aq(t);
}
template as bh(at...);
auto bi = bh(1.0f).bf();
[Bug c++/94751] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE on invalid code in maybe_instantiate_noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94751 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2
