Commit 8f9dd1b0 by Marek Polacek

c++: Fix wrong-code with non-constexpr constructor [PR93169]

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.
parent ccf86d54
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.
......
......@@ -2474,7 +2474,8 @@ cxx_eval_call_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree t,
/*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
......
// 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;
}
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment