Since r10-6527 fold_for_warn calls maybe_constant_value, which means it
can fold more than it previously could. In this testcase it means that
cp_build_binary_op/RSHIFT_EXPR set short_shift because now we were able
to fold op1 to an INTEGER_CST. But then when actually performing the
shortening we crashed because cp_fold_rvalue wasn't able to fold as much
as f_f_w and so tree_int_cst_sgn crashed on a NOP_EXPR. Therefore the
calls should probably match.
PR c++/94955
* typeck.c (cp_build_binary_op): Use fold_for_warn instead of
cp_fold_rvalue.
* g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-shift2.C: New test.
+2020-05-18 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
+
+ PR c++/94955
+ * typeck.c (cp_build_binary_op): Use fold_for_warn instead of
+ cp_fold_rvalue.
+
2020-05-18 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
PR c++/94937
{
int unsigned_arg;
tree arg0 = get_narrower (op0, &unsigned_arg);
- tree const_op1 = cp_fold_rvalue (op1);
+ /* We're not really warning here but when we set short_shift we
+ used fold_for_warn to fold the operand. */
+ tree const_op1 = fold_for_warn (op1);
final_type = result_type;
+2020-05-18 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
+
+ PR c++/94955
+ * g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-shift2.C: New test.
+
2020-05-18 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
PR c++/94937
--- /dev/null
+// PR c++/94955
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct S {
+ static constexpr char foo() { return 10; }
+};
+
+short int
+fn (short int e)
+{
+ return e >> S::foo();
+}