| Message ID | m339ckxr1e.fsf@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
The below passed bootstrap and testing, OK for trunk? Thanks. Dodji Seketeli <dodji@redhat.com> a écrit: > Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> writes: > >> On 12/16/2011 11:40 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote: >>> /* It's OK to skip a member with a trivial constexpr ctor. >>> A constexpr ctor that isn't trivial should have been >>> added in by now. */ >>> gcc_checking_assert (!TYPE_HAS_COMPLEX_DFLT (ftype)); >>> >>> If you think I am trying too hard, maybe I could just get out early >>> from register_constexpr_fundef if errorcount is non-zero? >> >> Let's just check errorcount in this assert. > > OK, I am currently testing the patch below. > >> >>> [1]: By the way, I am just curious, why using gcc_checking_assert >>> instead of just gcc_assert? >> >> In general, I think it makes sense to use gcc_checking_assert for >> checks that either are expensive, or check conditions that aren't >> really problematic to deal with if they do occur. But I haven't been >> particularly methodical about using one or the other. > > I see. Thanks. > > gcc/cp/ > > PR c++/51462 > * semantics.c (cx_check_missing_mem_inits): Don't assert in case > of error. > > gcc/testsuite/ > > PR c++/51462 > * g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-99.C: New test. > --- > gcc/cp/semantics.c | 3 ++- > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-99.C | 13 +++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-99.C > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/semantics.c b/gcc/cp/semantics.c > index 2f2a26a..f5d34c1 100644 > --- a/gcc/cp/semantics.c > +++ b/gcc/cp/semantics.c > @@ -6021,7 +6021,8 @@ cx_check_missing_mem_inits (tree fun, tree body, bool complain) > /* It's OK to skip a member with a trivial constexpr ctor. > A constexpr ctor that isn't trivial should have been > added in by now. */ > - gcc_checking_assert (!TYPE_HAS_COMPLEX_DFLT (ftype)); > + gcc_checking_assert (!TYPE_HAS_COMPLEX_DFLT (ftype) > + || errorcount != 0); > continue; > } > error ("uninitialized member %qD in %<constexpr%> constructor", > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-99.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-99.C > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..13a5ea3 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-99.C > @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ > +// Origin PR c++/51462 > +// { dg-options "-std=c++11" } > + > +struct A > +{ > + int i = 0; > +}; > + > +struct B > +{ > + A a; > + constexpr B() : a(0) {} // { dg-error "no matching function" } > +}; > -- > 1.7.6.4
OK. Jason
diff --git a/gcc/cp/semantics.c b/gcc/cp/semantics.c index 2f2a26a..f5d34c1 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/semantics.c +++ b/gcc/cp/semantics.c @@ -6021,7 +6021,8 @@ cx_check_missing_mem_inits (tree fun, tree body, bool complain) /* It's OK to skip a member with a trivial constexpr ctor. A constexpr ctor that isn't trivial should have been added in by now. */ - gcc_checking_assert (!TYPE_HAS_COMPLEX_DFLT (ftype)); + gcc_checking_assert (!TYPE_HAS_COMPLEX_DFLT (ftype) + || errorcount != 0); continue; } error ("uninitialized member %qD in %<constexpr%> constructor", diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-99.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-99.C new file mode 100644 index 0000000..13a5ea3 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-99.C @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +// Origin PR c++/51462 +// { dg-options "-std=c++11" } + +struct A +{ + int i = 0; +}; + +struct B +{ + A a; + constexpr B() : a(0) {} // { dg-error "no matching function" } +};