On 11/5/23 12:42, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
check_field_decls for DECL_C_BIT_FIELD FIELD_DECLs with error_mark_node
TREE_TYPE continues early and doesn't call check_bitfield_decl which would
either set DECL_BIT_FIELD, or clear DECL_C_BIT_FIELD. So, the following
testcase ICEs after emitting tons of errors, because
SET_DECL_FIELD_CXX_ZERO_WIDTH_BIT_FIELD asserts DECL_BIT_FIELD.
The patch skips that for FIELD_DECLs with error_mark_node, another
option would be to check DECL_BIT_FIELD in addition to DECL_C_BIT_FIELD.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
OK.
2023-11-05 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR c++/112365
* class.cc (layout_class_type): Don't
SET_DECL_FIELD_CXX_ZERO_WIDTH_BIT_FIELD on FIELD_DECLs with
error_mark_node type.
* g++.dg/cpp0x/pr112365.C: New test.
--- gcc/cp/class.cc.jj 2023-11-04 09:02:35.380001476 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/class.cc 2023-11-04 10:03:34.974075429 +0100
@@ -6962,7 +6962,8 @@ layout_class_type (tree t, tree *virtual
check_bitfield_decl eventually sets DECL_SIZE (field)
to that width. */
&& (DECL_SIZE (field) == NULL_TREE
- || integer_zerop (DECL_SIZE (field))))
+ || integer_zerop (DECL_SIZE (field)))
+ && TREE_TYPE (field) != error_mark_node)
SET_DECL_FIELD_CXX_ZERO_WIDTH_BIT_FIELD (field, 1);
check_non_pod_aggregate (field);
}
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/pr112365.C.jj 2023-11-04 10:05:58.285013791
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/pr112365.C 2023-11-04 10:05:14.879638217
+0100
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+// PR c++/112365
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+// { dg-excess-errors "" }
+
+template <typename> struct A;
+template <typename T> A <T> foo (T;
+template <typename T> struct A { constexpr A : T {} }
+struct { bar ( { foo (this)
Jakub
