OK.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Most of the spots in tsubst_baselink that actually access baselink after
> it has been assigned lookup_fnfields () test that it is a BASELINK_P, except
> one - the BASELINK_OPTYPE update. lookup_fnfields can return
> error_mark_node though, perhaps something else too. The patch just follows
> what the surrounding code does.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
>
> 2016-07-11 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
>
> PR c++/71826
> * pt.c (tsubst_baselink): Only set BASELINK_OPTYPE for BASELINK_P.
>
> * g++.dg/template/pr71826.C: New test.
>
> --- gcc/cp/pt.c.jj 2016-07-11 11:14:28.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/cp/pt.c 2016-07-11 12:30:45.939554745 +0200
> @@ -13734,7 +13734,8 @@ tsubst_baselink (tree baselink, tree obj
> BASELINK_FUNCTIONS (baselink),
> template_args);
> /* Update the conversion operator type. */
> - BASELINK_OPTYPE (baselink) = optype;
> + if (BASELINK_P (baselink))
> + BASELINK_OPTYPE (baselink) = optype;
>
> if (!object_type)
> object_type = current_class_type;
> --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/pr71826.C.jj 2016-07-11 12:34:51.406568756
> +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/pr71826.C 2016-07-11 12:33:35.000000000
> +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +// PR c++/71826
> +// { dg-do compile }
> +
> +template <class> struct A { int i; }; // { dg-message "note" }
> +struct B { void i () {} }; // { dg-message "note" }
> +template <class T> struct C : A <T>, B
> +{
> + void f () { i (); } // { dg-error "is ambiguous" }
> +};
> +
> +int
> +main ()
> +{
> + C <int> c;
> + c.f ();
> + return 0;
> +}
>
> Jakub
