https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107065

--- Comment #16 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
<ja...@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bc1ee711eeab4b0d55463cd153747d30c69225c7

commit r12-9127-gbc1ee711eeab4b0d55463cd153747d30c69225c7
Author: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu Dec 15 19:17:45 2022 +0100

    c++: Ensure !!var is not an lvalue [PR107065]

    The TRUTH_NOT_EXPR case in cp_build_unary_op is one of the spots where
    we somewhat fold immediately using invert_truthvalue_loc.
    I've tried using
      return build1_loc (location, TRUTH_NOT_EXPR, boolean_type_node, arg);
    in there instead, but unfortunately that regressed
    Wlogical-not-parentheses-*.c pr49706.c pr62199.c pr65120.c sequence-pt-1.C
    tests, so at least for backporting that doesn't seem to be a way to go.

    So, this patch instead wraps it into NON_LVALUE_EXPR if needed (which also
    need a tweak for some tests in the pr47906.c test, but nothing major),
    with the intent to make it backportable, and later I'll try to do further
    steps to avoid folding here prematurely.  Most of the problems with
    build1 TRUTH_NOT_EXPR are that it doesn't even invert comparisons as most
    common case and lots of warning code isn't able to deal with ! around
    comparisons; so perhaps one way to do this would be fold by hand only
    invertable comparisons and for the rest create TRUTH_NOT_EXPR.

    2022-12-15  Jakub Jelinek  <ja...@redhat.com>

            PR c++/107065
    gcc/cp/
            * typeck.cc (cp_build_unary_op) <case TRUTH_NOT_EXPR>: If
            invert_truthvalue_loc returns obvalue_p, wrap it into
NON_LVALUE_EXPR.
            * parser.cc (cp_parser_binary_expression): Don't call
            warn_logical_not_parentheses if current.lhs is a NON_LVALUE_EXPR
            of a decl with boolean type.
    gcc/testsuite/
            * g++.dg/cpp0x/pr107065.C: New test.

    (cherry picked from commit 8b775b4c48a3cc4ef5c50e56144aea02da2e9cc6)

Reply via email to