diff options
author | Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> | 2020-04-08 17:03:53 -0400 |
---|---|---|
committer | Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> | 2020-04-09 08:28:46 -0400 |
commit | 830c572428758f134bd001e699a08e622e2452c3 (patch) | |
tree | eb650334e618b8cfd52b357a2f8e84b87eda04fd /gcc/tree-sra.c | |
parent | 148289004696940ea5828d19e63a1e3791a2fb70 (diff) | |
download | gcc-830c572428758f134bd001e699a08e622e2452c3.zip gcc-830c572428758f134bd001e699a08e622e2452c3.tar.gz gcc-830c572428758f134bd001e699a08e622e2452c3.tar.bz2 |
c++: Fix wrong paren-init of aggregates interference [PR93790]
This PR points out that we are rejecting valid code in C++20. The
problem is that we were surreptitiously transforming
T& t(e)
into
T& t{e}
which is wrong, because the type of e had a conversion function to T,
while aggregate initialization of t from e doesn't work. Therefore, I
was violating a design principle of P0960, which says that any existing
meaning of A(b) should not change. So I think we should only attempt to
aggregate-initialize if the original expression was ill-formed.
Another design principle is that () should work where {} works, so this:
struct S { int i; };
const S& s(1);
has to keep working. Thus the special handling for paren-lists with one
element. (A paren-list with more than one element would give you "error:
expression list treated as compound expression in initializer" C++17.)
PR c++/93790
* call.c (initialize_reference): If the reference binding failed, maybe
try initializing from { }.
* decl.c (grok_reference_init): For T& t(e), set
LOOKUP_AGGREGATE_PAREN_INIT but don't build up a constructor yet.
* g++.dg/cpp2a/paren-init23.C: New test.
* g++.dg/init/aggr14.C: New test.
Diffstat (limited to 'gcc/tree-sra.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions