From e0659b5417b7f8a090ad2ed4dea830f11ef9c877 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jason Merrill Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 19:20:27 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] c++: fix in-charge parm in constexpr I was puzzled by the proposed patch for PR71093 specifically ignoring the in-charge parameter; the problem turned out to be that when cxx_eval_call_expression jumps from the clone to the cloned function, it assumes that the latter has the same parameters, and so the in-charge parm doesn't get an argument. Since a class with vbases can't have constexpr 'tors there isn't actually a need for an in-charge parameter in a destructor, but we used to use it for deleting destructors and never removed it. I have a patch to do that for GCC 15, but for now let's work around it. gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * constexpr.cc (cxx_eval_call_expression): Handle missing in-charge argument. --- gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc index 4cf9dd71b05..9d9e96c2afd 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc @@ -3169,6 +3169,19 @@ cxx_eval_call_expression (const constexpr_ctx *ctx, tree t, ctx->global->put_value (remapped, arg); remapped = DECL_CHAIN (remapped); } + for (; remapped; remapped = TREE_CHAIN (remapped)) + if (DECL_NAME (remapped) == in_charge_identifier) + { + /* FIXME destructors unnecessarily have in-charge parameters + even in classes without vbases, map it to 0 for now. */ + gcc_assert (!CLASSTYPE_VBASECLASSES (DECL_CONTEXT (fun))); + ctx->global->put_value (remapped, integer_zero_node); + } + else + { + gcc_assert (seen_error ()); + *non_constant_p = true; + } /* Add the RESULT_DECL to the values map, too. */ gcc_assert (!DECL_BY_REFERENCE (res)); ctx->global->put_value (res, NULL_TREE); -- 2.11.4.GIT