On 2016.07.23 at 22:55 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > Using build_value_init in a base initialization is wrong, because it > calls the complete object constructor and misses protected access. So > let's handle list-value-initialization in expand_aggr_init_1. > > Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
This patch causes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72457. And because it was backported, the gcc-6 branch is also affected. The following fix was tested on ppc64le. OK for trunk and gcc-6? (Unfortunately the reduced testcase is much too big.) PR c++/72457 *constexpr.c (cx_check_missing_mem_inits): Handle potential NULL_TREE. diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c index 6bcb41ae8254..83fd9a4896ac 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.c +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.c @@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ cx_check_missing_mem_inits (tree fun, tree body, bool complain) || DECL_ARTIFICIAL (index)) continue; } - for (; field != index; field = DECL_CHAIN (field)) + for (; field != NULL_TREE && field != index; field = DECL_CHAIN (field)) { tree ftype; if (TREE_CODE (field) != FIELD_DECL -- Markus
