https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107684
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6492cec069bccf817ac5e984fb3eca407056a566
commit r13-4046-g6492cec069bccf817ac5e984fb3eca407056a566
Author: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
Date: Tue Nov 15 08:00:21 2022 +0100
c++: Implement C++23 P2589R1 - - static operator[]
Here is a patch that implements the static operator[] paper.
One thing that doesn't work properly is the same problem as I've filed
yesterday for static operator() - PR107624 - that side-effects of
the postfix-expression on which the call or subscript operator are
applied are thrown away, I assume we have to add them into COMPOUND_EXPR
somewhere after we find out that the we've chosen a static member function
operator.
2022-11-15 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
gcc/c-family/
* c-cppbuiltin.cc (c_cpp_builtins): Bump C++23
__cpp_multidimensional_subscript macro value to 202211L.
gcc/cp/
* decl.cc (grok_op_properties): Implement C++23 P2589R1
- static operator[]. Handle operator[] similarly to operator()
- allow static member functions, but pedwarn on it for C++20 and
older. Unlike operator(), perform rest of checks on it though for
C++20.
* call.cc (add_operator_candidates): For operator[] with class
typed first parameter, pass that parameter as first_arg and
an adjusted arglist without that parameter.
gcc/testsuite/
* g++.dg/cpp23/subscript9.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp23/feat-cxx2b.C: Expect a newer
__cpp_multidimensional_subscript value.
* g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900210_10.C: Don't expect an error
for C++23 or later.
