Hi!
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 09:43:52PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> *************** record_targets_from_bases (tree otr_type
> *** 1286,1292 ****
> HOST_WIDE_INT otr_token,
> tree outer_type,
> HOST_WIDE_INT offset,
> ! vec <cgraph_node *> nodes,
> pointer_set_t *inserted,
> pointer_set_t *matched_vtables,
> bool *completep)
> --- 1318,1324 ----
> HOST_WIDE_INT otr_token,
> tree outer_type,
> HOST_WIDE_INT offset,
> ! vec <cgraph_node *> &nodes,
> pointer_set_t *inserted,
> pointer_set_t *matched_vtables,
> bool *completep)
I think this change (which has not been mentioned in the ChangeLog BTW)
has fixed PR59737. I've committed the following testcase as obvious
in order to close the PR.
2014-02-12 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR middle-end/59737
* g++.dg/ipa/pr59737.C: New test.
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr59737.C.jj 2014-02-12 17:47:28.123297799
+0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ipa/pr59737.C 2014-02-12 17:44:43.000000000 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+// PR middle-end/59737
+// { dg-do compile }
+// { dg-options "-O2" }
+
+struct A
+{
+ virtual void foo (int &x);
+ friend void
+ operator>> (int &x, A &y)
+ {
+ y.foo (x);
+ }
+};
+
+struct B : public A
+{
+ void foo (int &x);
+};
+
+struct F : public B
+{
+ void foo (int &x);
+};
+
+struct G : public F
+{
+ void foo (int &);
+};
+
+struct C : A
+{
+ void foo (int &);
+ struct H : public G
+ {
+ void foo (int &);
+ };
+ struct D : A
+ {
+ H d;
+ };
+};
+
+void
+C::foo (int &x)
+{
+ D a;
+ x >> a.d;
+}
Jakub
