OpenE2K/gcc
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

c++: Revert unnecessary parts of fix for [PR90996]

Browse Source 
The process_init_constructor_array part of my PR90996 patch turns out to
be neither necessary nor sufficient to make the pr90996.C testcase work,
and I wasn't able to come up with a testcase that demonstrates this part
is ever necessary.

gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

	Revert:

	2020-04-07  Patrick Palka  <ppalka@redhat.com>

	PR c++/90996
	* typeck2.c (process_init_constructor_array): Propagate
	CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY up from each element
	initializer to the array initializer.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

	PR c++/90996
	* g++.dg/cpp1y/pr90996.C: Turn into execution test to verify
	that each PLACEHOLDER_EXPR gets correctly resolved.
This commit is contained in:
Patrick Palka 2020-05-15 14:50:17 -04:00
parent cda6396a1b
commit 289fbbe75f
4 changed files with 35 additions and 19 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

11
gcc/cp/ChangeLog
View File

@ -1,3 +1,14 @@
2020-05-15 Patrick Palka <ppalka@redhat.com>
Revert:
2020-04-07 Patrick Palka <ppalka@redhat.com>
PR c++/90996
* typeck2.c (process_init_constructor_array): Propagate
CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY up from each element initializer to
the array initializer.
2020-05-15 Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
PR c++/93286 - ICE with __is_constructible and variadic template.

18
gcc/cp/typeck2.c
View File

@ -1496,17 +1496,6 @@ process_init_constructor_array (tree type, tree init, int nested, int flags,
= massage_init_elt (TREE_TYPE (type), ce->value, nested, flags,
complain);
if (TREE_CODE (ce->value) == CONSTRUCTOR
&& CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY (ce->value))
{
/* Shift CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY from the element initializer
up to the array initializer, so that the call to
replace_placeholders from store_init_value can resolve any
PLACEHOLDER_EXPRs inside this element initializer. */
CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY (ce->value) = 0;
CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY (init) = 1;
}
gcc_checking_assert
(ce->value == error_mark_node
|| (same_type_ignoring_top_level_qualifiers_p
@ -1535,13 +1524,6 @@ process_init_constructor_array (tree type, tree init, int nested, int flags,
/* The default zero-initialization is fine for us; don't
add anything to the CONSTRUCTOR. */
next = NULL_TREE;
else if (TREE_CODE (next) == CONSTRUCTOR
&& CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY (next))
{
/* As above. */
CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY (next) = 0;
CONSTRUCTOR_PLACEHOLDER_BOUNDARY (init) = 1;
}
}
else if (!zero_init_p (TREE_TYPE (type)))
next = build_zero_init (TREE_TYPE (type),

6
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
View File

@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
2020-05-15 Patrick Palka <ppalka@redhat.com>
PR c++/90996
* g++.dg/cpp1y/pr90996.C: Turn into execution test to verify that each
PLACEHOLDER_EXPR gets correctly resolved.
2020-05-15 Tobias Burnus <tobias@codesourcery.com>
PR fortran/94690

19
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr90996.C
View File

@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
// PR c++/90996
// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } }
// { dg-do run { target c++14 } }
struct S
{
@ -15,3 +15,20 @@ struct T
};
T d {};
int
main()
{
if (++c[0][0].b[0] != 6
|| ++c[0][1].b[0] != 3
|| ++c[1][0].b[0] != 3
|| ++c[1][1].b[0] != 3)
__builtin_abort();
auto& e = d.c;
if (++e[0][0].b[0] != 8
|| ++e[0][1].b[0] != 3
|| ++e[1][0].b[0] != 3
|| ++e[1][1].b[0] != 3)
__builtin_abort();
}