| Message ID | e2c2abf8-5c9d-5bf9-0851-9eedcf2a4aa8@oracle.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [C++] PR 80956 ("[7/8 Regression] ICE with abstract class vector") | expand |
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi, > > the main issue is already fixed in trunk but we still ICE on the reduced > testcase attached by Jakub which has a broken std::initializer_list missing > the definition. I think we can handle this case similarly to the existing > check in do_pushtag, which would be also consistent with the plain error we > give for, eg: > > namespace std { template <class> class initializer_list; } > > template class std::initializer_list<int>; > > However, we still have the option of issuing a fatal_error, like we do in > finish_struct. How about using complete_type_or_maybe_complain instead of a custom error? Jason
Hi, On 05/04/2018 15:56, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the main issue is already fixed in trunk but we still ICE on the reduced >> testcase attached by Jakub which has a broken std::initializer_list missing >> the definition. I think we can handle this case similarly to the existing >> check in do_pushtag, which would be also consistent with the plain error we >> give for, eg: >> >> namespace std { template <class> class initializer_list; } >> >> template class std::initializer_list<int>; >> >> However, we still have the option of issuing a fatal_error, like we do in >> finish_struct. > How about using complete_type_or_maybe_complain instead of a custom error? Yes, I was about to send a message about that option, I already had it in the audit trail, tested too, then started fiddling with fatal_errors and forgot to mention it ;) Anyway, would be the below. Thanks, Paolo. ///////////////////// Index: cp/call.c =================================================================== --- cp/call.c (revision 259124) +++ cp/call.c (working copy) @@ -6880,8 +6880,12 @@ convert_like_real (conversion *convs, tree expr, t if (array == error_mark_node) return error_mark_node; - /* Build up the initializer_list object. */ - totype = complete_type (totype); + /* Build up the initializer_list object. Note: fail gracefully + if the object cannot be completed because, for example, no + definition is provided. */ + totype = complete_type_or_maybe_complain (totype, NULL_TREE, complain); + if (!totype) + return error_mark_node; field = next_initializable_field (TYPE_FIELDS (totype)); CONSTRUCTOR_APPEND_ELT (vec, field, array); field = next_initializable_field (DECL_CHAIN (field)); Index: cp/name-lookup.c =================================================================== --- cp/name-lookup.c (revision 259124) +++ cp/name-lookup.c (working copy) @@ -6476,8 +6476,8 @@ do_pushtag (tree name, tree type, tag_scope scope) && init_list_identifier == DECL_NAME (TYPE_NAME (type)) && !CLASSTYPE_TEMPLATE_INFO (type)) { - error ("declaration of std::initializer_list does not match " - "#include <initializer_list>, isn't a template"); + error ("declaration of %<std::initializer_list%> does not match " + "%<#include <initializer_list>%>, isn't a template"); return error_mark_node; } } Index: testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist100.C =================================================================== --- testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist100.C (nonexistent) +++ testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist100.C (working copy) @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +// PR c++/80956 +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } } + +namespace std { +template <class> class initializer_list; // { dg-message "declaration" } +} + +template <typename T> struct B { B (std::initializer_list<T>); }; +struct C { virtual int foo (); }; +struct D : C {} d { B<C> { D {} } }; // { dg-error "incomplete|no matching" } Index: testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist101.C =================================================================== --- testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist101.C (nonexistent) +++ testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist101.C (working copy) @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ +// PR c++/80956 +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } } + +#include <initializer_list> + +template <typename T> struct B { B (std::initializer_list<T>); }; +struct C { virtual int foo (); }; +struct D : C {} d { B<C> { D {} } }; // { dg-error "no matching" }
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 05/04/2018 15:56, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:27 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> the main issue is already fixed in trunk but we still ICE on the reduced >>> testcase attached by Jakub which has a broken std::initializer_list >>> missing >>> the definition. I think we can handle this case similarly to the existing >>> check in do_pushtag, which would be also consistent with the plain error >>> we >>> give for, eg: >>> >>> namespace std { template <class> class initializer_list; } >>> >>> template class std::initializer_list<int>; >>> >>> However, we still have the option of issuing a fatal_error, like we do in >>> finish_struct. >> >> How about using complete_type_or_maybe_complain instead of a custom error? > > Yes, I was about to send a message about that option, I already had it in > the audit trail, tested too, then started fiddling with fatal_errors and > forgot to mention it ;) Anyway, would be the below. OK, thanks. Jason
Index: cp/call.c =================================================================== --- cp/call.c (revision 259124) +++ cp/call.c (working copy) @@ -6880,8 +6880,19 @@ convert_like_real (conversion *convs, tree expr, t if (array == error_mark_node) return error_mark_node; - /* Build up the initializer_list object. */ + /* Build up the initializer_list object. Note: fail gracefully + if the object cannot be completed because, for example, no + definition is provided. */ totype = complete_type (totype); + if (!COMPLETE_TYPE_P (totype)) + { + if (complain & tf_error) + error_at (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (TYPE_MAIN_DECL (totype)), + "declaration of %<std::initializer_list%> does not " + "match %<#include <initializer_list>%>, cannot be " + "completed"); + return error_mark_node; + } field = next_initializable_field (TYPE_FIELDS (totype)); CONSTRUCTOR_APPEND_ELT (vec, field, array); field = next_initializable_field (DECL_CHAIN (field)); Index: cp/name-lookup.c =================================================================== --- cp/name-lookup.c (revision 259124) +++ cp/name-lookup.c (working copy) @@ -6476,8 +6476,8 @@ do_pushtag (tree name, tree type, tag_scope scope) && init_list_identifier == DECL_NAME (TYPE_NAME (type)) && !CLASSTYPE_TEMPLATE_INFO (type)) { - error ("declaration of std::initializer_list does not match " - "#include <initializer_list>, isn't a template"); + error ("declaration of %<std::initializer_list%> does not match " + "%<#include <initializer_list>%>, isn't a template"); return error_mark_node; } } Index: testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist100.C =================================================================== --- testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist100.C (nonexistent) +++ testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist100.C (working copy) @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +// PR c++/80956 +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } } + +namespace std { +template <class> class initializer_list; // { dg-error "declaration of .*std::initializer_list.* does not match" } +} + +template <typename T> struct B { B (std::initializer_list<T>); }; +struct C { virtual int foo (); }; +struct D : C {} d { B<C> { D {} } }; // { dg-error "no matching" } Index: testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist101.C =================================================================== --- testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist101.C (nonexistent) +++ testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist101.C (working copy) @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ +// PR c++/80956 +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } } + +#include <initializer_list> + +template <typename T> struct B { B (std::initializer_list<T>); }; +struct C { virtual int foo (); }; +struct D : C {} d { B<C> { D {} } }; // { dg-error "no matching" }
Hi, the main issue is already fixed in trunk but we still ICE on the reduced testcase attached by Jakub which has a broken std::initializer_list missing the definition. I think we can handle this case similarly to the existing check in do_pushtag, which would be also consistent with the plain error we give for, eg: namespace std { template <class> class initializer_list; } template class std::initializer_list<int>; However, we still have the option of issuing a fatal_error, like we do in finish_struct. In any case, I'm tweaking for consistency do_pushtag about %< and %>. Tested x86_64-linux. Thanks, Paolo. /////////////////// /cp 2018-04-05 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> PR c++/80956 * call.c (convert_like_real): Fail gracefully for a broken std::initializer_list, missing a definition. * name-lookup.c (do_pushtag): Tweak message, use %< and %>. /testsuite 2018-04-05 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> PR c++/80956 * g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist100.C: New. * g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist101.C: Likewise.