On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 03:48:34PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 11:58 AM Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > In this testcase, the call to f() can never be a constant expression, but > > that's not a problem because it is never reached. We handle a similar > > scenario > > for IF_STMT, so we can just do the same. The RANGE_FOR_STMT case seems to > > never be reached in the whole testsuite, so I didn't change that. > > That seems like a hole in the testsuite. How about this? > > constexpr int > fn3() > { > struct empty_range { > constexpr int* begin() { return 0; } > constexpr int* end() { return 0; } > } e; > for (auto x : e) > f(); > return 0; > } > > The patch is OK; you can address fn3 in a follow-up patch.
Thanks. fn3() still only triggers case FOR_STMT, because RANGE_FOR_STMT are only created in templates, and are converted to FOR_STMTs in tsubst_expr. But I've now found a testcase that triggers the RANGE_FOR_STMT case: int f() { return 1; } template<typename> constexpr void fn4 () { struct empty_range { constexpr int* begin() { return 0; } constexpr int* end() { return 0; } } e; constexpr int j = ({ for (auto x : e) f(); 1; }); } void fn5 () { fn4<int>(); } However, we fail to compile both fn3 and fn4, because we're unable to evaluate __for_begin != __for_end. I'm going to try to figure out why. Marek