on Tue, 2 May 2023, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2023, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > On 5/1/23 15:59, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > > Here we're incorrectly deeming the templated call a.g() inside b's
> > > initializer as potentially constant, despite g being non-constexpr,
> > > which leads to us wastefully instantiating the initializer ahead of time
> > > and triggering a bug in access checking deferral (which will get fixed
> > > in the subsequent patch).
> > >
> > > This patch fixes this by calling get_fns earlier during potentiality
> > > checking so that we also handle the templated form of a member function
> > > call (whose overall callee is a COMPONENT_REF) when checking if the called
> > > function is constexpr etc.
> > >
> > > PR c++/109480
> > >
> > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > > * constexpr.cc (potential_constant_expression_1) <case CALL_EXPR>:
> > > Reorganize to call get_fns sooner. Remove dead store to 'fun'.
> > >
> > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C: Make e() constexpr so that the
> > > expected "without object" diagnostic isn't replaced by a
> > > "call to non-constexpr function" diagnostic.
> > > * g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C: New test.
> > > ---
> > > gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 16 ++++++++--------
> > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C | 2 +-
> > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > > 3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C
> > >
> > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > > index d1097764b10..29d872d0a5e 100644
> > > --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > > +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> > > @@ -9132,6 +9132,10 @@ potential_constant_expression_1 (tree t, bool
> > > want_rval, bool strict, bool now,
> > > if (fun && is_overloaded_fn (fun))
> > > {
> > > + if (!RECUR (fun, true))
> > > + return false;
> > > + fun = get_fns (fun);
> > > +
> > > if (TREE_CODE (fun) == FUNCTION_DECL)
> > > {
> > > if (builtin_valid_in_constant_expr_p (fun))
> > > @@ -9167,7 +9171,8 @@ potential_constant_expression_1 (tree t, bool
> > > want_rval, bool strict, bool now,
> > > expression the address will be folded away, so look
> > > through it now. */
> > > if (DECL_NONSTATIC_MEMBER_FUNCTION_P (fun)
> > > - && !DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (fun))
> > > + && !DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (fun)
> > > + && !processing_template_decl)
> >
> > I don't see any rationale for this hunk?
>
> Now that we call get_fns earlier, we can reach this code path with a
> templated non-static memfn call, but the code that follows assumes
> non-templated form.
>
> I tried teaching it to handle the templated form too, but there's
> apparently two different templated forms for non-static memfn calls,
> one with a COMPONENT_REF callee and one with an ordinary BASELINK
> callee (without a implicit object argument). In the former the implict
> object argument is inside the COMPONENT_REF (and is a reference instead
> of a pointer), and in the latter we don't even have an implicit object
> argument to inspect.
>
> FWIW I think which form we use depends on whether we know if the called
> function is a member of the current instantiation, e.g
>
> struct A { void f(); };
>
> template<class T> struct B;
>
> template<class T>
> struct C : B<T> {
> void g();
>
> void h() {
> A::f(); // templated form has BASELINK callee, no object arg
> C::g(); // templated form has COMPONENT_REF callee
> }
> };
>
> So it seemed best to punt on templated non-static memfn calls here for
> now and treat that as a separate enhancement.
And I'm not even sure if the code path in question is necessary at all
anymore: disabling it outright doesn't cause any regressions in the testsuite.
It seems effectively equivalent to the body of the loop over the args a few
lines later:
for (; i < nargs; ++i)
{
tree x = get_nth_callarg (t, i);
/* In a template, reference arguments haven't been converted to
REFERENCE_TYPE and we might not even know if the parameter
is a reference, so accept lvalue constants too. */
bool rv = processing_template_decl ? any : rval;
/* Don't require an immediately constant value, as constexpr
substitution might not use the value of the argument. */
bool sub_now = false;
if (!potential_constant_expression_1 (x, rv, strict,
sub_now, fundef_p, flags,
jump_target))
return false;
}
>
> >
> > > {
> > > tree x = get_nth_callarg (t, 0);
> > > if (is_this_parameter (x))
> > > @@ -9182,16 +9187,11 @@ potential_constant_expression_1 (tree t, bool
> > > want_rval, bool strict, bool now,
> > > i = 1;
> > > }
> > > }
> > > - else
> > > - {
> > > - if (!RECUR (fun, true))
> > > - return false;
> > > - fun = get_first_fn (fun);
> > > - }
> > > +
> > > + fun = OVL_FIRST (fun);
> > > /* Skip initial arguments to base constructors. */
> > > if (DECL_BASE_CONSTRUCTOR_P (fun))
> > > i = num_artificial_parms_for (fun);
> > > - fun = DECL_ORIGIN (fun);
> > > }
> > > else if (fun)
> > > {
> > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C
> > > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C
> > > index c752601ba09..1dc826d3111 100644
> > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C
> > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept59.C
> > > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
> > > template <class ...Ts> class A
> > > {
> > > - void e ();
> > > + constexpr bool e () { return true; };
> > > bool f (int() noexcept(this->e())); // { dg-error "this" }
> > > bool g (int() noexcept(e())); // { dg-error "without object" }
> > > };
> > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C
> > > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 00000000000..a2f9801e11f
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/non-dependent25.C
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> > > +// PR c++/109480
> > > +
> > > +template<class T>
> > > +struct A {
> > > + void f() {
> > > + A<int> a;
> > > + const bool b = a.g();
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > +private:
> > > + bool g() const;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +template struct A<int>;
> >
> >
>
