diff options
author | Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> | 2025-02-19 14:06:33 -0500 |
---|---|---|
committer | Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> | 2025-02-27 13:45:01 -0500 |
commit | 9792126ac769f2962c0f305991818c64f9e51221 (patch) | |
tree | d5d6571f9ca052322255b8079873614c5408258a /libgfortran/generated | |
parent | 3071eb2848a2e748cfd67e8c897890ce06c69d06 (diff) | |
download | gcc-9792126ac769f2962c0f305991818c64f9e51221.zip gcc-9792126ac769f2962c0f305991818c64f9e51221.tar.gz gcc-9792126ac769f2962c0f305991818c64f9e51221.tar.bz2 |
c++: ICE with GOTO_EXPR [PR118928]
In this PR we crash in cxx_eval_constant_expression/GOTO_EXPR on:
gcc_assert (cxx_dialect >= cxx23);
The code obviously doesn't expect to see a goto pre-C++23. But we can
get here with the new prvalue optimization. In this test we found
ourselves in synthesize_method for X::X(). This function calls:
a) finish_function, which does cp_genericize -> ... -> genericize_c_loops,
which creates the GOTO_EXPR;
b) expand_or_defer_fn -> maybe_clone_body -> ... -> cp_fold_function
where we reach the new maybe_constant_init call and crash on the
goto.
Since we can validly get to that assert, I think we should just remove
it. I don't see other similar asserts like this one.
PR c++/118928
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.cc (cxx_eval_constant_expression) <case GOTO_EXPR>: Remove
an assert.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-prvalue5.C: New test.
Reviewed-by: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'libgfortran/generated')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions