On 8/26/24 4:26 AM, Simon Martin wrote:
Hi Jason,

On 22 Aug 2024, at 19:28, Jason Merrill wrote:

On 8/22/24 12:51 PM, Simon Martin wrote:
We currently ICE upon the following invalid code, because we don't
check the
number of template parameters in member class template
specializations. This
patch fixes the PR by adding such a check.

=== cut here ===
template <typename T> struct x {
    template <typename U> struct y {
      typedef T result2;
    };
};
template<> template<typename U, typename> struct x<int>::y {
    typedef double result2;
};
int main() {
    x<int>::y<int>::result2 xxx2;
}
=== cut here ===

Successfully tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.

        PR c++/115716

gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

        * pt.cc (maybe_process_partial_specialization): Check number of
        template parameters in specialization.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

        * g++.dg/template/spec42.C: New test.

---
   gcc/cp/pt.cc                           | 14 ++++++++++++++
   gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/spec42.C | 17 +++++++++++++++++
   2 files changed, 31 insertions(+)
   create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/spec42.C

diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.cc b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
index bc3ad5edcc5..db8c2a3b4de 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
@@ -1173,6 +1173,20 @@ maybe_process_partial_specialization (tree
type)
                       type, inst);
            }
  +       /* Check that the number of template parameters matches the
template
+            being specialized.  */
+         gcc_assert (current_template_parms);
+         if (TREE_VEC_LENGTH (INNERMOST_TEMPLATE_ARGS
+                              (CLASSTYPE_TI_ARGS (type)))
+             != TREE_VEC_LENGTH (INNERMOST_TEMPLATE_PARMS
+                                 (current_template_parms)))
+           {
+             error ("wrong number of template parameters for %qT", type);
+             inform (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (tmpl), "from definition of
%q#D",
+                     tmpl);

How about printing the numbers for each place?

What if the mismatch is other than in the number of parameters?  Can
you use template_parameter_lists_equivalent_p?  Or if that's
complicated, compare current_template_args() to CLASSTYPE_TI_ARGS
(type)?

Thanks for the review. After checking further, I believe we just miss a
call to redeclare_class_template, that will catch various template
parameter mismatch and properly report them.

This is what the updated attached patch does, successfully tested on
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?

OK.

Reply via email to