On 3/27/19 4:44 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21/03/19 15:03 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/20/19 6:06 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:58:32PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 05:55:04PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 04:56:33PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Mar 20, 2019, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
This test fails with
pr88534.C:58:1: sorry, unimplemented: string literal in function
template signature
Interesting... gcc-8 rejected it with an error message rejecting the
template parameter, but my latest trunk build (dated Mar 13, r269641)
compiles it all right. Was there a subsequent fix, maybe? I didn't
realize it was supposed to be rejected.
Ah, that problem only started with r269814, namely this hunk:
Maybe this is done too early and should be postponed to genericization
(perhaps except for TREE_STATIC vars)?
Or skip when DECL is template_parm_object_p.
Or handle it in mangle.c. I don't see any reason we shouldn't accept
struct A
{
char c[4];
};
template <A a> struct B { };
B<A{"FOO"}> b;
Probably we should use the same mangling whether the initializer for c
was spelled as a string literal or list of integers.
The thing we still don't want to allow is mangling the *address* of a
string literal.
Will that help PR 47488 as well?
What I have (attached) accepts all three test cases from PR 47488
(comment #0, #1, #2, and #5) but with different mangling.
The difference in the mangling of the function in the test case
in comment #0 is
Clang: _Z1gIiEDTcl1fcvT__ELA1_KcEEERKS0_
GCC 9: _Z1gIiEDTcl1fcvT__ELKc0EEERKS0_
I'm not very familiar with the C++ ABI mangling but from what
I can tell, Clang treats the type as a literal array of 1 const
char element (LA1_Kc) without actually encoding its value, while
with my patch GCC encodes it as a constant literal initializer
consisting of 1 null char (LKc0). In other words, Clang would
mangle these two the same for the same T:
template < typename T >
decltype (f (T(), "123")) g (const T&);
template < typename T >
decltype (f (T(), "abc")) g (const T&);
while GCC would mangle them differently.
Which is correct? Clang's seems correct in this case but would
it also be correct to mangle Jason's B<A{"FOO"}> the same as
B<A{"BAR"}>?
Martin
PR c++/89833 - sorry, unimplemented: string literal in function template signature
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/89833
* mangle.c (write_expression): Convert braced initializer lists
to STRING_CSTs.
(write_template_arg_literal): Mangle strings the same as braced
initializer lists.
Index: gcc/cp/mangle.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/cp/mangle.c (revision 269965)
+++ gcc/cp/mangle.c (working copy)
@@ -3136,6 +3136,10 @@ write_expression (tree expr)
}
else if (code == CONSTRUCTOR)
{
+ /* Convert braced initializer lists to STRING_CSTs so that
+ A<"Foo"> and A<{'F', 'o', 'o', 0}> mangle the same. */
+ expr = braced_lists_to_strings (TREE_TYPE (expr), expr);
+
vec<constructor_elt, va_gc> *elts = CONSTRUCTOR_ELTS (expr);
unsigned i; tree val;
@@ -3354,8 +3358,13 @@ static void
write_template_arg_literal (const tree value)
{
write_char ('L');
- write_type (TREE_TYPE (value));
+ tree valtype = TREE_TYPE (value);
+ if (TREE_CODE (value) == STRING_CST)
+ valtype = TREE_TYPE (valtype);
+
+ write_type (valtype);
+
/* Write a null member pointer value as (type)0, regardless of its
real representation. */
if (null_member_pointer_value_p (value))
@@ -3397,7 +3406,15 @@ write_template_arg_literal (const tree value)
break;
case STRING_CST:
- sorry ("string literal in function template signature");
+ /* Mangle strings the same as braced initializer lists. */
+ for (const char *p = TREE_STRING_POINTER (value); ; ++p)
+ {
+ write_unsigned_number (*(const unsigned char*)p);
+ if (!*p)
+ break;
+ write_string ("EL");
+ write_type (valtype);
+ }
break;
default:
