On Thu, 26 May 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > On 5/26/22 14:57, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > On Thu, 26 May 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here we expect the calls to BaseClass::baseDevice resolve to the second,
> > > > third and fourth overloads respectively in light of the cv-qualifiers
> > > > of 'this' in each case. But ever since r12-6075-g2decd2cabe5a4f, the
> > > > calls incorrectly resolve to the first overload at instantiation time.
> > > >
> > > > This happens because the calls to BaseClass::baseDevice are all deemed
> > > > non-dependent (ever since r7-755-g23cb72663051cd made us ignore the
> > > > dependentness of 'this' when considering the dependence of a non-static
> > > > memfn call), hence we end up checking the call ahead of time, using as
> > > > the object argument a dummy object of type BaseClass. Since this object
> > > > argument is cv-unqualified, the calls incoherently resolve to the first
> > > > overload of baseDevice. Before r12-6075, this incorrect result would
> > > > just get silently discarded and we'd end up redoing OR at instantiation
> > > > time using 'this' as the object argument. But after r12-6075, we now
> > > > reuse this incorrect result at instantiation time.
> > > >
> > > > This patch fixes this by making finish_call_expr request from
> > > > maybe_dummy_object a cv-qualified object consistent with the cv-quals of
> > > > 'this'. That way, ahead of time OR using a dummy object will give us
> > > > the right answer and we could safely reuse it at instantiation time.
> > > >
> > > > NB: r7-755 is also the cause of the related issue PR105742. Not sure
> > > > if there's a fix that could resolve both PRs at once..
> > > >
> > > > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK
> > > > for trunk/12?
> > > >
> > > > PR c++/105637
> > > >
> > > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> > > >
> > > > * semantics.cc (finish_call_expr): Pass a cv-qualified object
> > > > type to maybe_dummy_object that is consistent with the
> > > > cv-qualifiers of 'this' if available.
> > > >
> > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > > >
> > > > * g++.dg/template/non-dependent23.C: New test.
> > > > ---
> > > > gcc/cp/semantics.cc | 15 ++++++++---
> > > > .../g++.dg/template/non-dependent23.C | 25 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent23.C
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/semantics.cc b/gcc/cp/semantics.cc
> > > > index cd7a2818feb..1d9348c6cf1 100644
> > > > --- a/gcc/cp/semantics.cc
> > > > +++ b/gcc/cp/semantics.cc
> > > > @@ -2802,16 +2802,25 @@ finish_call_expr (tree fn, vec<tree, va_gc>
> > > > **args, bool disallow_virtual,
> > > > [class.access.base] says that we need to convert 'this' to B* as
> > > > part of the access, so we pass 'B' to maybe_dummy_object. */
> > > > + tree object_type = BINFO_TYPE (BASELINK_ACCESS_BINFO (fn));
> > > > if (DECL_MAYBE_IN_CHARGE_CONSTRUCTOR_P (get_first_fn (fn)))
> > > > {
> > > > /* A constructor call always uses a dummy object. (This
> > > > constructor
> > > > call which has the form A::A () is actually invalid and we
> > > > are
> > > > going to reject it later in build_new_method_call.) */
> > > > - object = build_dummy_object (BINFO_TYPE (BASELINK_ACCESS_BINFO
> > > > (fn)));
> > > > + object = build_dummy_object (object_type);
> > > > }
> > > > else
> > > > - object = maybe_dummy_object (BINFO_TYPE (BASELINK_ACCESS_BINFO
> > > > (fn)),
> > > > - NULL);
> > > > + {
> > > > + if (current_class_ref)
> > > > + {
> > > > + /* Make sure that if maybe_dummy_object gives us a dummy
> > > > object,
> > > > + it'll have the same cv-quals as '*this'. */
> > > > + int quals = cp_type_quals (TREE_TYPE (current_class_ref));
> > > > + object_type = cp_build_qualified_type (object_type,
> > > > quals);
> > > > + }
> > > > + object = maybe_dummy_object (object_type, NULL);
> > > > + }
> > > > result = build_new_method_call (object, fn, args, NULL_TREE,
> > > > (disallow_virtual
> > >
> > > Drat, this fix doesn't interact well with 'this'-capturing lambdas:
> > >
> > > struct BaseClass {
> > > void baseDevice(); // #1
> > > void baseDevice() const = delete; // #2
> > > };
> > >
> > > template<class T>
> > > struct TopClass : T {
> > > void failsToCompile() {
> > > [this] { BaseClass::baseDevice(); }();
> > > }
> > > };
> > >
> > > template struct TopClass<BaseClass>;
> > >
> > > Here after the fix, we'd incorrectly select the const #2 overload at
> > > template definition time because current_class_ref is the const 'this'
> > > for the lambda rather than the non-const 'this' for TopClass.. I suppose
> > > we need something like current_nonlambda_class_type for getting at the
> > > innermost non-lambda 'this'?
> >
> > Do you want maybe_resolve_dummy (ob, false)?
>
> That sadly doesn't seem to work -- the object type is BaseClass which is
> not necessarily a base of the dependent TopClass<T>, so
> resolvable_dummy_lambda returns NULL_TREE. I guess it would work at
> instantiation time though.
Ah, what seems to work well is directly using lambda_expr_this_capture
instead of maybe_resolve_dummy. And we might as well handle this in
maybe_dummy_object for benefit of all callers. How does the following
look? Smoke tested with RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=*.C", full bootstrap and
regtesting in progress.
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] c++: cv-quals of dummy obj for non-dep memfn call [PR105637]
In non-dependent23.C below we expect the BaseClass::baseDevice calls to
resolve to the second, third and fourth overloads respectively in light
of the cv-qualifiers of 'this' in each case. But ever since
r12-6075-g2decd2cabe5a4f, the calls incorrectly resolve to the first
overload at instantiation time.
This happens because the calls to BaseClass::baseDevice are all deemed
non-dependent (ever since r7-755-g23cb72663051cd made us ignore 'this'
dependence when considering the dependence of a non-static memfn call),
hence we end up checking the call ahead of time, using as the object
argument a dummy object of type BaseClass. Since this object argument
is cv-unqualified, the calls incoherently resolve to the first overload
of baseDevice. Before r12-6075, this incorrect result would just get
silently discarded and we'd end up redoing OR at instantiation time
using 'this' as the object argument. But after r12-6075, we now reuse
this incorrect result at instantiation time.
This patch fixes this by making maybe_dummy_object respect the cv-quals
of (the non-lambda) 'this' when returning a dummy object. Thus, ahead
of time OR using a dummy object will give us the right answer that is
consistent with the instantiation time answer.
An earlier version of this patch didn't handle 'this'-capturing lambdas
correctly, which caused us to mishandle lambda-this22.C below.
PR c++/105637
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* tree.cc (maybe_dummy_object): When returning a dummy
object, respect the cv-quals of 'this' if available.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-this22.C: New test.
* g++.dg/template/non-dependent23.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/tree.cc | 19 +++++++++++++-
.../g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-this22.C | 20 +++++++++++++++
.../g++.dg/template/non-dependent23.C | 25 +++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-this22.C
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent23.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.cc b/gcc/cp/tree.cc
index 09162795801..679bf05b721 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/tree.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/tree.cc
@@ -4330,7 +4330,24 @@ maybe_dummy_object (tree type, tree* binfop)
(TREE_TYPE (current_class_ref), context)))
decl = current_class_ref;
else
- decl = build_dummy_object (context);
+ {
+ /* Return a dummy object whose cv-quals are consistent with (the
+ non-lambda) 'this' if available. */
+ if (current_class_ref)
+ {
+ int quals = 0;
+ if (current == current_class_type)
+ quals = cp_type_quals (TREE_TYPE (current_class_ref));
+ else if (lambda_function (current_class_type))
+ {
+ tree lambda = CLASSTYPE_LAMBDA_EXPR (current_class_type);
+ if (tree cap = lambda_expr_this_capture (lambda, false))
+ quals = cp_type_quals (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (cap)));
+ }
+ context = cp_build_qualified_type (context, quals);
+ }
+ decl = build_dummy_object (context);
+ }
return decl;
}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-this22.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-this22.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..c9e512b1621
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/lambda/lambda-this22.C
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+// PR c++/105637
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct BaseClass {
+ void baseDevice(); // #1
+ void baseDevice() const = delete; // #2
+};
+
+template<class T>
+struct TopClass : T {
+ void failsToCompile() {
+ [this] { BaseClass::baseDevice(); }(); // should select #2, not #1
+ }
+
+ void failsToCompile() const {
+ [this] { BaseClass::baseDevice(); }(); // { dg-error "deleted" }
+ }
+};
+
+template struct TopClass<BaseClass>;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent23.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent23.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..ef95c591b75
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent23.C
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+// PR c++/105637
+
+struct BaseClass {
+ void baseDevice(); // #1
+ void baseDevice() const; // #2
+ void baseDevice() volatile; // #3
+ void baseDevice() const volatile; // #4
+};
+
+template<class T>
+struct TopClass : T {
+ void failsToCompile() const {
+ BaseClass::baseDevice(); // should select #2, not #1
+ }
+
+ void failsToCompile() volatile {
+ BaseClass::baseDevice(); // should select #3, not #1
+ }
+
+ void failsToCompile() const volatile {
+ BaseClass::baseDevice(); // should select #4, not #1
+ }
+};
+
+template struct TopClass<BaseClass>;
--
2.36.1.195.g8ddf593a25
>
> >
> > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent23.C
> > > > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent23.C
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 00000000000..ef95c591b75
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent23.C
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
> > > > +// PR c++/105637
> > > > +
> > > > +struct BaseClass {
> > > > + void baseDevice(); // #1
> > > > + void baseDevice() const; // #2
> > > > + void baseDevice() volatile; // #3
> > > > + void baseDevice() const volatile; // #4
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +template<class T>
> > > > +struct TopClass : T {
> > > > + void failsToCompile() const {
> > > > + BaseClass::baseDevice(); // should select #2, not #1
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + void failsToCompile() volatile {
> > > > + BaseClass::baseDevice(); // should select #3, not #1
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + void failsToCompile() const volatile {
> > > > + BaseClass::baseDevice(); // should select #4, not #1
> > > > + }
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +template struct TopClass<BaseClass>;
> > > > --
> > > > 2.36.1.182.g6afdb07b7b
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
