Here, because we don't build a CONSTRUCTOR for an empty base, we were
wrongly marking the Foo CONSTRUCTOR as complete after initializing the Empty
member. Fixed by checking empty_base here as well.
PR c++/112439
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.cc (cxx_eval_store_expression): Check empty_base
before marking a CONSTRUCTOR readonly.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp2a/no_unique_address15.C: New test.
object. Make a note of this fact by marking the CONSTRUCTOR
TREE_READONLY. */
if (TREE_CODE (t) == INIT_EXPR
+ && !empty_base
&& TREE_CODE (*valp) == CONSTRUCTOR
&& TYPE_READONLY (type))
{
--- /dev/null
+// PR c++/112439
+// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } }
+
+struct Empty {};
+
+class Foo {
+public:
+ constexpr Foo(int x, Empty y, int z) : a(x), b(y)
+ {
+ c = z;
+ }
+
+private:
+ int a{};
+ [[no_unique_address]] Empty b{};
+ [[no_unique_address]] int c{};
+};
+
+constexpr Foo r{1, {}, 3};