On 5/29/20 1:40 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/29/20 11:59 AM, Patrick Palka wrote:
In the testcase below, the satisfaction value of fn1<int>'s constraint
is INTEGER_CST '1' of type BOOLEAN_TYPE value_type, which is a typedef
to the standard boolean_type_node. But satisfaction_value expects to
see exactly boolean_true_node or integer_one_node, which this value is
neither, causing us to trip over the assert therein.
This patch relaxes satisfaction_value to accept any INTEGER_CST which
satisfies integer_zerop or integer_onep. (It seems we could get away
with accepting only INTEGER_CSTs of type BOOLEAN_TYPE, but that wouldn't
be a proper relaxation of what the subroutine currently accepts and
would therefore be more risky to backport.)
I think for GCC 11 I'd prefer to restrict it to BOOLEAN_TYPE. This patch is
OK for GCC 10.
Sounds good. Would the following be OK for GCC 11 after a full
bootstrap and regtest?
I opted to mirror satisfy_atom and instead check
same_type_p (..., boolean_type_node).
OK.
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] c++: satisfaction value of type typedef to bool [PR95386]
In the testcase below, the satisfaction value of fn1<int>'s constraint
is INTEGER_CST '1' of type BOOLEAN_TYPE value_type, which is a typedef
to the standard boolean_type_node. But satisfaction_value expects to
see exactly boolean_true_node or integer_one_node, which this value is
neither, causing us to trip over the assert therein.
This patch changes satisfaction_value to accept INTEGER_CST of any
boolean type.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/95386
* constraint.cc (satisfaction_value): Accept INTEGER_CST of any
boolean type.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR c++/95386
* g++.dg/concepts/pr95386.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/constraint.cc | 14 +++++++-------
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/concepts/pr95386.C | 11 +++++++++++
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/concepts/pr95386.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constraint.cc b/gcc/cp/constraint.cc
index eb72bfe5936..92ff283013e 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constraint.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/constraint.cc
@@ -2490,15 +2490,15 @@ satisfy_disjunction (tree t, tree args, subst_info info)
tree
satisfaction_value (tree t)
{
- if (t == error_mark_node)
+ if (t == error_mark_node || t == boolean_true_node || t ==
boolean_false_node)
return t;
- if (t == boolean_true_node || t == integer_one_node)
- return boolean_true_node;
- if (t == boolean_false_node || t == integer_zero_node)
- return boolean_false_node;
- /* Anything else should be invalid. */
- gcc_assert (false);
+ gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (t) == INTEGER_CST
+ && same_type_p (TREE_TYPE (t), boolean_type_node));
+ if (integer_zerop (t))
+ return boolean_false_node;
+ else
+ return boolean_true_node;
}
/* Build a new template argument list with template arguments corresponding
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/concepts/pr95386.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/concepts/pr95386.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..3c683e5693c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/concepts/pr95386.C
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+// PR c++/95386
+// { dg-do compile { target concepts } }
+
+template <typename> struct blah {
+ typedef bool value_type;
+ constexpr operator value_type() { return false; }
+};
+
+template <class T> void fn1(T) requires (!blah<T>());
+
+void fn2() { fn1(0); }
