On 5/3/23 16:50, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/2/23 15:53, Patrick Palka wrote:
on Tue, 2 May 2023, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 5/1/23 15:59, Patrick Palka wrote:
Here we're incorrectly deeming the templated call a.g() inside b's
initializer as potentially constant, despite g being non-constexpr,
which leads to us wastefully instantiating the initializer ahead of
time
and triggering a bug in access checking deferral (which will get fixed
in the subsequent patch).
This patch fixes this by calling get_fns earlier during potentiality
checking so that we also handle the templated form of a member
function
call (whose overall callee is a COMPONENT_REF) when checking if the
called
function is constexpr etc.
PR c++/109480
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.cc (potential_constant_expression_1) <case
CALL_EXPR>:
Reorganize to call get_fns sooner. Remove dead store to
'fun'.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C: Make e() constexpr so that the
expected "without object" diagnostic isn't replaced by a
"call to non-constexpr function" diagnostic.
* g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 16
++++++++--------
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C | 2 +-
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C | 14 ++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
index d1097764b10..29d872d0a5e 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
@@ -9132,6 +9132,10 @@ potential_constant_expression_1 (tree t, bool
want_rval, bool strict, bool now,
if (fun && is_overloaded_fn (fun))
{
+ if (!RECUR (fun, true))
+ return false;
+ fun = get_fns (fun);
+
if (TREE_CODE (fun) == FUNCTION_DECL)
{
if (builtin_valid_in_constant_expr_p (fun))
@@ -9167,7 +9171,8 @@ potential_constant_expression_1 (tree t, bool
want_rval, bool strict, bool now,
expression the address will be folded away, so look
through it now. */
if (DECL_NONSTATIC_MEMBER_FUNCTION_P (fun)
- && !DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (fun))
+ && !DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (fun)
+ && !processing_template_decl)
I don't see any rationale for this hunk?
Now that we call get_fns earlier, we can reach this code path with a
templated non-static memfn call, but the code that follows assumes
non-templated form.
I tried teaching it to handle the templated form too, but there's
apparently two different templated forms for non-static memfn calls,
one with a COMPONENT_REF callee and one with an ordinary BASELINK
callee (without a implicit object argument). In the former the implict
object argument is inside the COMPONENT_REF (and is a reference instead
of a pointer), and in the latter we don't even have an implicit object
argument to inspect.
FWIW I think which form we use depends on whether we know if the called
function is a member of the current instantiation, e.g
struct A { void f(); };
template<class T> struct B;
template<class T>
struct C : B<T> {
void g();
void h() {
A::f(); // templated form has BASELINK callee, no object arg
C::g(); // templated form has COMPONENT_REF callee
}
};
So it seemed best to punt on templated non-static memfn calls here for
now and treat that as a separate enhancement.
And I'm not even sure if the code path in question is necessary at all
anymore: disabling it outright doesn't cause any regressions in the
testsuite.
It seems effectively equivalent to the body of the loop over the args a few
lines later:
If removing that hunk doesn't regress anything, let's do it. Probably that
should have happened in r13-55-ge9d2adc17d0dbe
Sounds good, here's the combined patch which I'm bootstrapping for good
measure. Does it look OK for trunk if bootstrap+regtest succeeds?
OK.
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] c++: potentiality of templated memfn call [PR109480]
Here we're incorrectly deeming the templated call a.g() inside b's
initializer as potentially constant, despite g being non-constexpr,
which leads to us wastefully instantiating the initializer ahead of time,
which incidentally tiggers a bug in access checking deferral (to be
fixed by the subsequent patch).
This patch fixes this by calling get_fns earlier during CALL_EXPR
potentiality checking so that we're able to extract a FUNCTION_DECL out
of a templated member function call (whose overall is typically a
COMPONENT_REF) and to the usual checking if the called function is
constexpr etc.
In passing, I noticed potential_constant_expression_1's special handling
of the object argument of a non-static member function call is effectively
the same as the generic argument handling a few lines later. So this
patch just gets rid of this special handling; otherwise we'd have to adapt
it to handle templated versions of such calls.
PR c++/109480
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.cc (potential_constant_expression_1) <case CALL_EXPR>:
Reorganize to call get_fns sooner. Remove special handling of
the object argument of a non-static member function call. Remove
dead store to 'fun'.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C: Make e() constexpr so that the
expected "without object" diagnostic isn't replaced by a
"call to non-constexpr function" diagnostic.
* g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 32 ++++---------------
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C | 2 +-
.../g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C | 14 ++++++++
3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
index d1097764b10..075339f7f62 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
@@ -9132,6 +9132,10 @@ potential_constant_expression_1 (tree t, bool want_rval,
bool strict, bool now,
if (fun && is_overloaded_fn (fun))
{
+ if (!RECUR (fun, true))
+ return false;
+ fun = get_fns (fun);
+
if (TREE_CODE (fun) == FUNCTION_DECL)
{
if (builtin_valid_in_constant_expr_p (fun))
@@ -9162,36 +9166,12 @@ potential_constant_expression_1 (tree t, bool
want_rval, bool strict, bool now,
explain_invalid_constexpr_fn (fun);
return false;
}
- /* A call to a non-static member function takes the address
- of the object as the first argument. But in a constant
- expression the address will be folded away, so look
- through it now. */
- if (DECL_NONSTATIC_MEMBER_FUNCTION_P (fun)
- && !DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (fun))
- {
- tree x = get_nth_callarg (t, 0);
- if (is_this_parameter (x))
- return true;
- /* Don't require an immediately constant value, as
- constexpr substitution might not use the value. */
- bool sub_now = false;
- if (!potential_constant_expression_1 (x, rval, strict,
- sub_now, fundef_p,
- flags, jump_target))
- return false;
- i = 1;
- }
- }
- else
- {
- if (!RECUR (fun, true))
- return false;
- fun = get_first_fn (fun);
}
+
+ fun = OVL_FIRST (fun);
/* Skip initial arguments to base constructors. */
if (DECL_BASE_CONSTRUCTOR_P (fun))
i = num_artificial_parms_for (fun);
- fun = DECL_ORIGIN (fun);
}
else if (fun)
{
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C
index c752601ba09..1dc826d3111 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
template <class ...Ts> class A
{
- void e ();
+ constexpr bool e () { return true; };
bool f (int() noexcept(this->e())); // { dg-error "this" }
bool g (int() noexcept(e())); // { dg-error "without object" }
};
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..c00e44532b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+// PR c++/109480
+
+template<class T>
+struct A {
+ void f() {
+ A<int> a;
+ const bool b = a.g(); // { dg-bogus "private" }
+ }
+
+private:
+ bool g() const;
+};
+
+template struct A<int>;
