https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114409
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The question is what handles the COMPOUND_EXPR with DECL_EXPR when the
ANNOTATE_EXPR isn't around. tsubst_expr doesn't handle DECL_EXPRs.
It's built even w/o the #pragma via finish_cond and finish_while_stmt_cond
and in that case it's tsubst_stmt that handles the COMPOUND_EXPR and
that function does handle DECL_EXPRs. Maybe ANNOTATE_EXPR should be handled
at the "stmt" level [as well]? Or the COMPOUND_EXPR handling in
tsubst_expr should recurse to tsubst_stmt?
That said, ( DECL_EXPR <X>, .. use of X ) is phishy?
Jason?
The following fixes it:
diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.cc b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
index bf4b89d8413..dae423a751f 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
@@ -20635,8 +20635,11 @@ tsubst_expr (tree t, tree args, tsubst_flags_t
complain, tree in_decl)
case COMPOUND_EXPR:
{
- tree op0 = tsubst_expr (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0), args,
+ tree op0 = tsubst_stmt (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0), args,
complain & ~tf_decltype, in_decl);
+ if (op0 == NULL_TREE)
+ /* If the first operand was a statement, we're done with it. */
+ RETURN (RECUR (TREE_OPERAND (t, 1)));
RETURN (build_x_compound_expr (EXPR_LOCATION (t),
op0,
RECUR (TREE_OPERAND (t, 1)),
