In order to detect modifying constant objects in constexpr evaluation,
which is UB, in r10-2655 I added code that sets TREE_READONLY on
CONSTRUCTORs of const-qualified objects after they have been fully
constructed. But I never made sure that what we're setting the flag
on actually is a CONSTRUCTOR. Consequently, as this test case shows,
we could set TREE_READONLY on a VAR_DECL that in fact wasn't constant,
causing problems later. Fixed by setting the flag on CONSTRUCTORs
only, and only when the evaluation produced something constant.
2020-02-19 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
PR c++/93169 - wrong-code with a non-constexpr constructor.
* constexpr.c (cxx_eval_call_expression): Only set TREE_READONLY
on constant CONSTRUCTORs.
* g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-93169.C: New test.
+2020-02-19 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
+
+ PR c++/93169 - wrong-code with a non-constexpr constructor.
+ * constexpr.c (cxx_eval_call_expression): Only set TREE_READONLY
+ on constant CONSTRUCTORs.
+
2020-02-15 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
PR c++/93710 - poor diagnostic for array initializer.
/*lval*/false,
non_constant_p,
overflow_p);
- TREE_READONLY (e) = true;
+ if (TREE_CODE (e) == CONSTRUCTOR && !*non_constant_p)
+ TREE_READONLY (e) = true;
}
/* Forget the saved values of the callee's SAVE_EXPRs and
+2020-02-19 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
+
+ PR c++/93169 - wrong-code with a non-constexpr constructor.
+ * g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-93169.C: New test.
+
2020-02-19 Martin Sebor <msebor@redhat.com>
PR tree-optimization/92128
--- /dev/null
+// PR c++/93169 - Wrong-code with a non-constexpr constructor.
+// { dg-do run { target c++11 } }
+// { dg-options "-O2" }
+
+template <typename T> class B {
+ struct C {
+ T h;
+ constexpr C() {}
+ ~C() {}
+ } c;
+};
+struct S {
+ int g;
+ S() { g = 2; }
+};
+
+int
+main()
+{
+ static const B<S> f;
+}