This patch fixes PR c++/72759. The problem seems to be that when
instantiating a variable template, we fail to propagate error_mark_node
when its template arguments are erroneous, and we instead build a bogus
TEMPLATE_ID_EXPR which later confuses check_initializer(). Does this
look OK to commit after bootstrap + regtesting?
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/72759
* pt.c (tsubst_qualified_id): Return error_mark_node if
template_args is error_mark_node.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR c++/72759
* g++.dg/cpp1y/pr72759.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/pt.c | 3 +++
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr72759.C | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr72759.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.c b/gcc/cp/pt.c
index a23a05a..6b70a65 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
@@ -13907,6 +13907,9 @@ tsubst_qualified_id (tree qualified_id, tree args,
if (is_template)
{
+ if (template_args == error_mark_node)
+ return error_mark_node;
+
if (variable_template_p (expr))
expr = lookup_and_finish_template_variable (expr, template_args,
complain);
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr72759.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr72759.C
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4af6ea4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr72759.C
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+// PR c++/72759
+// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } }
+
+template <typename> struct SpecPerType;
+class Specializer {
+ public: template <bool> static void MbrFnTempl();
+ template <unsigned> struct A { static void InnerMemberFn(); };
+ void Trigger() { A<0>::InnerMemberFn; }
+};
+template <> struct SpecPerType<Specializer> {
+ using FnType = void *;
+ template <bool P>
+ static constexpr FnType SpecMbrFnPtr = Specializer::MbrFnTempl<P>;
+};
+template <unsigned X> void Specializer::A<X>::InnerMemberFn() {
+ using Spec = SpecPerType<Specializer>;
+ Spec ErrorSite = Spec::SpecMbrFnPtr<SpecMbrFnPtr>; // { dg-error "not
declared" }
+}
--
2.9.2.564.g4d4f0b7
