https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105529
Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Therefore, a potential fix would be:
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
@@ -5916,8 +5916,9 @@ cxx_eval_store_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree
t,
gcc_checking_assert (!*valp || (same_type_ignoring_top_level_qualifiers_p
(TREE_TYPE (*valp), type)));
- if (empty_base || !(same_type_ignoring_top_level_qualifiers_p
- (TREE_TYPE (init), type)))
+ if (empty_base || (CLASS_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (init))
+ && !(same_type_ignoring_top_level_qualifiers_p
+ (TREE_TYPE (init), type))))
{
/* For initialization of an empty base, the original target will be
*(base*)this, evaluation of which resolves to the object
This code expects code like
D.2181 = {}
where the type of the LHS is the derived type and the type of the RHS is the
base type.
