On 2016.07.27 at 17:21 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf > <mar...@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: > > On 2016.07.23 at 22:55 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > >> Using build_value_init in a base initialization is wrong, because it > >> calls the complete object constructor and misses protected access. So > >> let's handle list-value-initialization in expand_aggr_init_1. > >> > >> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk. > > > > This patch causes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72457. > > And because it was backported, the gcc-6 branch is also affected. > > > > The following fix was tested on ppc64le. OK for trunk and gcc-6? > > > > (Unfortunately the reduced testcase is much too big.) > > > > PR c++/72457 > > *constexpr.c (cx_check_missing_mem_inits): Handle potential > > NULL_TREE. > > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c > > index 6bcb41ae8254..83fd9a4896ac 100644 > > --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c > > +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c > > @@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ cx_check_missing_mem_inits (tree fun, tree body, bool > > complain) > > || DECL_ARTIFICIAL (index)) > > continue; > > } > > - for (; field != index; field = DECL_CHAIN (field)) > > + for (; field != NULL_TREE && field != index; field = DECL_CHAIN > > (field)) > > This is wrong; it ends up just skipping over the rest of the fields, > so we don't check whether they were initialized. Rather, we need to > handle seeing two initializers in a row for the same field.
OK. I will let you handle this issue. It would be good to have a testcase that fails when the rest of the fields are skipped over. -- Markus
