Ok, thanks.

On Apr 10, 2018 4:37 PM, "Marek Polacek" <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 02:18:16PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 01:17:22PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 6:59 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
wrote:
> >> > Recently the code in finish_static_assert was changed to use
> >> > perform_implicit_conversion_flags followed by
fold_non_dependent_expr.  That
> >> > broke this test becase when in a template, p_i_c_f merely wraps the
expr in
> >> > an IMPLICIT_CONV_EXPR.  fold_non_dependent_expr should be able to
fold it to
> >> > a constant but it gave up because
is_nondependent_constant_expression returned
> >> > false.  Jason suggested to fix this roughly like the following, i.e.
consider
> >> > conversions from classes to literal types potentially constant.
> >> >
> >> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
> >> >
> >> > 2018-03-24  Marek Polacek  <pola...@redhat.com>
> >> >
> >> >         PR c++/85032
> >> >         * constexpr.c (potential_constant_expression_1): Consider
conversions
> >> >         from classes to literal types potentially constant.
> >> >
> >> >         * g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51225.C: Adjust error message.
> >> >         * g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-if17.C: New test.
> >> >
> >> > diff --git gcc/cp/constexpr.c gcc/cp/constexpr.c
> >> > index bebd9f5b5d0..c4b5afe90a2 100644
> >> > --- gcc/cp/constexpr.c
> >> > +++ gcc/cp/constexpr.c
> >> > @@ -5768,6 +5768,23 @@ potential_constant_expression_1 (tree t, bool
want_rval, bool strict, bool now,
> >> >                       TREE_TYPE (t));
> >> >           return false;
> >> >         }
> >> > +      /* This might be a conversion from a class to a literal
type.  Let's
> >> > +        consider it potentially constant since the conversion might
be
> >> > +        a constexpr user-defined conversion.  */
> >> > +      else if (cxx_dialect >= cxx11
> >> > +              && COMPLETE_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t))
> >> > +              && literal_type_p (TREE_TYPE (t))
> >>
> >> We probably need to allow dependent types here, too.  And incomplete
> >> classes, which might turn out to be literal later.
> >
> > Ok, I've allowed incomplete types, too.  And I think the patch also
allows
> > dependent types.  Or did you mean using
> >    && (TREE_TYPE (t) == NULL_TREE
> >        || !COMPLETE_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t))
> >        || literal_type_p (TREE_TYPE (t)))
> > ?  That doesn't seem to be needed.
>
> I meant dependent_type_p (TREE_TYPE (t)).  I suppose checking
> COMPLETE_TYPE_P will cover that by accident, but I'd prefer to make it
> explicit.

Ah, ok.  I've added it, but seems like I need to keep the COMPLETE_TYPE_P
check, too, otherwise e.g. default13.C fails in literal_type_p: we have
a type that is still incomplete even after the call to complete_type.


> > +         /* If this is a dependent type, it could end up being a class
> > +            with conversions.  */
> > +         if (type == NULL_TREE || WILDCARD_TYPE_P (type))
> > +           return true;
> > +         /* Or a non-dependent class which has conversions.  */
> > +         else if (CLASS_TYPE_P (type) && TYPE_HAS_CONVERSION (type))
> > +           return true;
>
> And here, a dependent class type like A<T*> could fail both of these
> tests and still end up with conversions when instantiated.  We should
> check dependent_scope_p as well as TYPE_HAS_CONVERSION.

Hopefully done, too.


Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?

2018-04-10  Marek Polacek  <pola...@redhat.com>


        PR c++/85032
        * constexpr.c (potential_constant_expression_1): Consider
conversions
        from classes to literal types potentially constant.

        * g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51225.C: Adjust error message.
        * g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-if21.C: New test.

diff --git gcc/cp/constexpr.c gcc/cp/constexpr.c
index 3cc196b4d17..75f56df4465 100644
--- gcc/cp/constexpr.c
+++ gcc/cp/constexpr.c
@@ -5777,6 +5777,25 @@ potential_constant_expression_1 (tree t, bool
want_rval, bool strict, bool now,
                      TREE_TYPE (t));
          return false;
        }

+      /* This might be a conversion from a class to a (potentially) literal
+        type.  Let's consider it potentially constant since the conversion
+        might be a constexpr user-defined conversion.  */

+      else if (cxx_dialect >= cxx11
+              && (dependent_type_p (TREE_TYPE (t))
+                  || !COMPLETE_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (t))

+                  || literal_type_p (TREE_TYPE (t)))
+              && TREE_OPERAND (t, 0))
+       {
+         tree type = TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0));
+         /* If this is a dependent type, it could end up being a class
+            with conversions.  */
+         if (type == NULL_TREE || WILDCARD_TYPE_P (type))
+           return true;
+         /* Or a non-dependent class which has conversions.  */
+         else if (CLASS_TYPE_P (type)
+                  && (TYPE_HAS_CONVERSION (type) || dependent_scope_p
(type)))

+           return true;
+       }

       return (RECUR (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0),
                     TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (t)) != REFERENCE_TYPE));
diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51225.C
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51225.C
index f80bd0e778e..5b4e432f7ed 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51225.C
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51225.C
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ template<int> struct A {};

 template<typename> void foo()
 {
-  A<int(x)> a; // { dg-error "not declared|invalid type" }
+  A<int(x)> a; // { dg-error "not declared|could not convert" }
 }

 template<typename> struct bar
diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-if21.C
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-if21.C
index e69de29bb2d..56e108be4ad 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-if21.C
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-if21.C

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+// PR c++/85032
+// { dg-options -std=c++17 }
+
+struct A
+{
+  constexpr operator bool () { return true; }
+  int i;
+};
+
+A a;
+
+template <class T>
+void f()
+{
+  constexpr bool b = a;
+  static_assert (a);
+}
+
+int main()
+{
+  f<int>();
+}

        Marek

Reply via email to