On 12/3/20 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 10:15:25PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
Jakub noticed that we weren't recognizing a default argument for a consteval
member function as being in immediate function context because there was no
function parameter scope to look at.
Note that this patch doesn't actually push the parameters into the scope,
that happens in a separate commit.
Shouldn't we also be testing how it behaves in templates?
The following testcase is an attempt to test both non-dependent and
dependent consteval calls in both function and class templates, and with
your committed patch it now passes.
Ok for trunk?
OK, thanks.
2020-12-03 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
* g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval-defarg2.C: New test.
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval-defarg2.C.jj 2020-12-03
10:26:16.340256056 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval-defarg2.C 2020-12-03
10:19:33.215853790 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+// Test that late-parsed default args have the same consteval semantics.
+// { dg-do compile { target c++20 } }
+
+template <int N>
+consteval bool foo (bool x) { if (x) throw N; return false; }
+consteval bool qux (bool x) { if (x) throw 1; return false; }
+template <int N>
+consteval bool bar (bool x = foo<N> (true)) { return true; }
+template <int N>
+consteval bool corge (bool x = qux (true)) { return true; }
+template <int N>
+struct S
+{
+ consteval static bool baz (bool x = foo<N> (true)) { return true; }
+ consteval static bool garply (bool x = qux (true)) { return true; }
+};
+struct T
+{
+ template <int N>
+ consteval static bool baz (bool x = foo<N> (true)) { return true; }
+ template <int N>
+ consteval static bool garply (bool x = qux (true)) { return true; }
+};
+constexpr bool a = bar<0> (true);
+constexpr bool b = corge<0> (true);
+constexpr bool c = S<0>::baz (true);
+constexpr bool d = S<0>::garply (true);
+constexpr bool e = T::baz<0> (true);
+constexpr bool f = T::garply<0> (true);
Jakub
