Hi,
this regression unfortunately has to do with my fix for c++/57887, thus
the code in maybe_begin_member_template_processing:
if (nsdmi)
decl = (CLASSTYPE_TEMPLATE_INFO (DECL_CONTEXT (decl))
? CLASSTYPE_TI_TEMPLATE (DECL_CONTEXT (decl))
: NULL_TREE);
The check is true for the new testcase and we end up with an
unsubstituted STATIC_CAST_EXPR which leads to an ICE in
cxx_eval_constant_expression. Having tried a number of ideas (by now we
have got quite a few testcases in this area), I think it makes sense to
check uses_template_parms too on DECL_CONTEXT (decl): when it returns
false I don't think we may run into uses of template parms a la
c++/57887 and we are back to the status pre- that fix in nsdmi handling.
Tested x86_64-linux.
Thanks,
Paolo.
/////////////////////
/cp
2014-04-30 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com>
PR c++/60999
* pt.c (maybe_begin_member_template_processing): Use
uses_template_parms.
/testsuite
2014-04-30 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com>
PR c++/60999
* g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template9.C: New.
Index: cp/pt.c
===================================================================
--- cp/pt.c (revision 209916)
+++ cp/pt.c (working copy)
@@ -463,6 +463,7 @@ maybe_begin_member_template_processing (tree decl)
if (nsdmi)
decl = (CLASSTYPE_TEMPLATE_INFO (DECL_CONTEXT (decl))
+ && uses_template_parms (DECL_CONTEXT (decl))
? CLASSTYPE_TI_TEMPLATE (DECL_CONTEXT (decl))
: NULL_TREE);
Index: testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template9.C
===================================================================
--- testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template9.C (revision 0)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-template9.C (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+// PR c++/60999
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+template <typename A>
+struct foo
+{
+};
+
+template<>
+struct foo<int>
+{
+ static constexpr int code = 42;
+ unsigned int bar = static_cast<unsigned int>(code);
+};
+
+foo<int> a;