On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:05:17AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > 2018-01-24 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
> >
> > PR c++/83993
> > * constexpr.c (cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr): Don't clear
> > TREE_CONSTANT on ADDR_EXPRs.
> >
> > * g++.dg/init/pr83993-2.C: New test.
> >
> > --- gcc/cp/constexpr.c.jj 2018-01-24 13:38:40.572913190 +0100
> > +++ gcc/cp/constexpr.c 2018-01-24 17:03:16.821440047 +0100
> > @@ -4832,7 +4832,7 @@ cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr (tree t
> >
> > if (non_constant_p && !allow_non_constant)
> > return error_mark_node;
> > - else if (non_constant_p && TREE_CONSTANT (r))
> > + else if (non_constant_p && TREE_CONSTANT (r) && TREE_CODE (r) !=
> > ADDR_EXPR)
> > {
> > /* This isn't actually constant, so unset TREE_CONSTANT. */
> > if (EXPR_P (r))
>
> Hmm, what if we check for ADDR_EXPR in the EXPR_P test, so we build a
> non-TREE_CONSTANT NOP_EXPR around the ADDR_EXPR instead?
That looks like a good idea and works on the testcase in question,
ok for trunk if it passes bootstrap/regtest?
2018-01-31 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>
Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR c++/83993
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr): Build NOP_EXPR
around non-constant ADDR_EXPRs rather than clearing TREE_CONSTANT
on ADDR_EXPR.
* g++.dg/init/pr83993-2.C: New test.
--- gcc/cp/constexpr.c.jj 2018-01-30 12:30:24.279362188 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/constexpr.c 2018-01-31 17:18:03.316302653 +0100
@@ -4824,7 +4824,7 @@ cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr (tree t
else if (non_constant_p && TREE_CONSTANT (r))
{
/* This isn't actually constant, so unset TREE_CONSTANT. */
- if (EXPR_P (r))
+ if (EXPR_P (r) && TREE_CODE (r) != ADDR_EXPR)
r = copy_node (r);
else if (TREE_CODE (r) == CONSTRUCTOR)
r = build1 (VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (r), r);
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/pr83993-2.C.jj 2018-01-31 17:17:04.755290928
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/pr83993-2.C 2018-01-31 17:17:04.755290928
+0100
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+// PR c++/83993
+// { dg-do compile }
+// { dg-options "-w" }
+
+int a[5];
+extern int b[];
+int *const c = &a[6];
+int *const d = &b[1];
+
+int
+foo ()
+{
+ return c[-4] + d[-1];
+}
Jakub
