From: Patrick Palka Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 18:50:17 +0000 (-0400) Subject: c++: Revert unnecessary parts of fix for [PR90996] X-Git-Url: https://git.libre-soc.org/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=289fbbe75f6d1c69605fcfde769ac46944c14a4a;p=gcc.git c++: Revert unnecessary parts of fix for [PR90996] 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 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. --- diff --git a/gcc/cp/ChangeLog b/gcc/cp/ChangeLog index 732be07c9c0..acd2d7be844 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/ChangeLog +++ b/gcc/cp/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,14 @@ +2020-05-15 Patrick Palka + + Revert: + + 2020-04-07 Patrick Palka + + 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 PR c++/93286 - ICE with __is_constructible and variadic template. diff --git a/gcc/cp/typeck2.c b/gcc/cp/typeck2.c index af84c257e96..5fd3b82fa89 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/typeck2.c +++ b/gcc/cp/typeck2.c @@ -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), diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog index 61b2f9e71db..0a77dbdf980 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog +++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +2020-05-15 Patrick Palka + + 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 PR fortran/94690 diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr90996.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr90996.C index 780cbb4e3ac..eff5b62db28 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr90996.C +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/pr90996.C @@ -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(); +}