On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:35:07AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> >
> > -- >8 --
> > Here we ICE because we call register_local_specialization while
> > local_specializations is null, so
> >
> > local_specializations->put ();
> >
> > crashes on null this. It's null since maybe_instantiate_noexcept calls
> > push_to_top_level which creates a new scope. Normally, I would have
> > guessed that we need a new local_specialization_stack. But here we're
> > dealing with an operand of a noexcept, which is an unevaluated operand,
> > and those aren't registered in the hash map. maybe_instantiate_noexcept
> > wasn't signalling that it's substituting an unevaluated operand though.
>
> It thought it was noexcept-exprs rather than noexcept-specs that are
> unevaluated contexts?
Yes, sigh. It would have to be noexcept(noexcept(x)). I was looking at
cp_parser_unary_expression/RID_NOEXCEPT but that's a noexcept-expr. So
what can we do here, set a new local_specialization_stack? That wasn't
that straightforward when I tried. Or maybe just
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
@@ -15649,7 +15649,7 @@ tsubst_decl (tree t, tree args, tsubst_flags_t complain,
{
if (DECL_LANG_SPECIFIC (r))
DECL_TEMPLATE_INFO (r) = NULL_TREE;
- if (!cp_unevaluated_operand)
+ if (!cp_unevaluated_operand && local_specializations)
register_local_specialization (r, t);
}
?
