On the following testcase we ICE during constexpr evaluation (for warnings),
because the IL has ADDR_EXPR of BIT_CAST_EXPR and ADDR_EXPR case asserts
the result is not a CONSTRUCTOR.
The patch punts on lval BIT_CAST_EXPR folding.
> This change is OK, but part of the problem is that we're trying to do
> overload resolution for an S copy/move constructor, which we shouldn't be
> because bit_cast is a prvalue, so in C++17 and up we should use it to
> directly initialize the target without any implied constructor call.
This version therefore wraps it into a TARGET_EXPR then, it alone fixes
the bug, but I've kept the constexpr.c change too.
2021-01-05 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR c++/98469
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_constant_expression) <case BIT_CAST_EXPR>:
Punt if lval is true.
* semantics.c (cp_build_bit_cast): Call get_target_expr_sfinae on
the result if it has a class type.
* g++.dg/cpp2a/bit-cast8.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp2a/bit-cast9.C: New test.
return t;
case BIT_CAST_EXPR:
+ if (lval)
+ {
+ if (!ctx->quiet)
+ error_at (EXPR_LOCATION (t),
+ "address of a call to %qs is not a constant expression",
+ "__builtin_bit_cast");
+ *non_constant_p = true;
+ return t;
+ }
r = cxx_eval_bit_cast (ctx, t, non_constant_p, overflow_p);
break;
tree ret = build_min (BIT_CAST_EXPR, type, arg);
SET_EXPR_LOCATION (ret, loc);
+
+ if (!processing_template_decl && CLASS_TYPE_P (type))
+ ret = get_target_expr_sfinae (ret, complain);
+
return ret;
}
--- /dev/null
+// PR c++/98469
+// { dg-do compile { target c++20 } }
+// { dg-options "-Wall" }
+
+struct S { int s; };
+
+S
+foo ()
+{
+ return __builtin_bit_cast (S, 0);
+}
--- /dev/null
+// PR c++/98469
+// { dg-do compile { target c++20 } }
+// { dg-options "-Wall" }
+
+template<typename T, typename F>
+constexpr T
+bit_cast (const F &f) noexcept
+{
+ return __builtin_bit_cast (T, f);
+}
+struct S { int s; };
+constexpr int foo (const S &x) { return x.s; }
+constexpr int bar () { return foo (bit_cast<S> (0)); }
+constexpr int x = bar ();
+static_assert (!x);