On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 10:39:49PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote: > On 4/3/20 9:08 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 03:01:37PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > > > On 3/30/20 4:28 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > > Here we crash in the gimplifier because gimplify_init_ctor_eval doesn't > > > > expect null indexes for a constructor: > > > > > > > > /* ??? Here's to hoping the front end fills in all of the > > > > indices, > > > > so we don't have to figure out what's missing ourselves. */ > > > > gcc_assert (purpose); > > > > > > > > The indexes weren't filled because we never called reshape_init: for > > > > a constructor that represents parenthesized initialization of an > > > > aggregate we don't allow brace elision or designated initializers. So > > > > fill in the indexes manually, here we have an array, and we can simply > > > > assign indexes starting from 0. > > > > > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk? > > > > > > Shouldn't digest_init fill in the indexes? In > > > process_init_constructor_array I see > > > > > > if (!ce->index) > > > ce->index = size_int (i); > > > > Yes, that works too. Thus: > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk? > > > > -- >8 -- > > Here we crash in the gimplifier because gimplify_init_ctor_eval doesn't > > expect null indexes for a constructor: > > > > /* ??? Here's to hoping the front end fills in all of the indices, > > so we don't have to figure out what's missing ourselves. */ > > gcc_assert (purpose); > > > > The indexes weren't filled because we never called reshape_init: for > > a constructor that represents parenthesized initialization of an > > aggregate we don't allow brace elision or designated initializers. So > > call digest_init to fill in the indexes. > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk? > > > > PR c++/94155 - crash in gimplifier with paren init of aggregates. > > * decl.c (check_initializer): Call digest_init. > > > > * g++.dg/cpp2a/paren-init22.C: New test. > > --- > > gcc/cp/decl.c | 5 +++++ > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/paren-init22.C | 15 +++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/paren-init22.C > > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl.c b/gcc/cp/decl.c > > index 69a238997b4..63e7bda09f5 100644 > > --- a/gcc/cp/decl.c > > +++ b/gcc/cp/decl.c > > @@ -6754,6 +6754,11 @@ check_initializer (tree decl, tree init, int flags, > > vec<tree, va_gc> **cleanups) > > init = build_constructor_from_list (init_list_type_node, init); > > CONSTRUCTOR_IS_DIRECT_INIT (init) = true; > > CONSTRUCTOR_IS_PAREN_INIT (init) = true; > > + /* The gimplifier expects that the front end fills in all of the > > + indices. Normally, reshape_init_array fills these in, but we > > + don't call reshape_init because that does nothing when it gets > > + CONSTRUCTOR_IS_PAREN_INIT. */ > > + init = digest_init (type, init, tf_warning_or_error); > > But why weren't we already calling digest_init in store_init_value? Was the > CONSTRUCTOR making it all the way to gimplification still having > init_list_type_node?
It's because we set LOOKUP_ALREADY_DIGESTED a few lines below: 6813 /* Don't call digest_init; it's unnecessary and will complain 6814 about aggregate initialization of non-aggregate classes. */ 6815 flags |= LOOKUP_ALREADY_DIGESTED; and so store_init_value doesn't digest. Given the comment I'd be nervous about not setting that flag here. Marek
