Hi!
No idea how this slipped in, I'm terribly sorry.
Strangely nothing in the testsuite has caught this, so I've added
a new test for that.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, committed to trunk
and for 15.2, 14.4, 13.4 and 12.5.
2025-07-03 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR c++/120940
* typeck.cc (cp_build_array_ref): Fix a pasto.
* g++.dg/parse/pr120940.C: New test.
* g++.dg/warn/Wduplicated-branches9.C: New test.
--- gcc/cp/typeck.cc.jj 2025-07-03 12:44:48.361162801 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/typeck.cc 2025-07-03 19:32:04.155912353 +0200
@@ -4004,7 +4004,7 @@ cp_build_array_ref (location_t loc, tree
tree op0, op1, op2;
op0 = TREE_OPERAND (array, 0);
op1 = TREE_OPERAND (array, 1);
- op2 = TREE_OPERAND (array, 1);
+ op2 = TREE_OPERAND (array, 2);
if (TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (idx) || !tree_invariant_p (idx))
{
/* If idx could possibly have some SAVE_EXPRs, turning
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr120940.C.jj 2025-07-03 19:39:26.808149189
+0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr120940.C 2025-07-03 19:42:27.499903370
+0200
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+// PR c++/120940
+// { dg-do run }
+
+int a[8] = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 };
+int b[8] = { 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 };
+
+__attribute__((noipa)) int
+foo (int x, int y)
+{
+ return (x ? a : b)[y];
+}
+
+int
+main ()
+{
+ if (foo (1, 4) != 5 || foo (0, 6) != 15)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+}
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wduplicated-branches9.C.jj 2025-07-03
19:35:53.383915748 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wduplicated-branches9.C 2025-07-03
19:35:47.132997460 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+// PR c++/120940
+// { dg-do compile }
+// { dg-options "-Wduplicated-branches" }
+
+static char a[16][8], b[16][8];
+
+char *
+foo (int x, int y)
+{
+ return (x ? a : b)[y];
+}
Jakub
