Here instantiating the noexcept-specifier for bar<void>() means
instantiating A<void>::value, which complains about the conversion from 0 to
int* in the default argument of foo. Since my patch for PR99583, printing
the error context involves looking at C<void>::type, which again wants to
instantiate A<void>::value, which breaks. For now at least, let's break
this recursion by avoiding looking into the noexcept-specifier in
find_typenames, and limit that to just the uses_parameter_packs case that
PR99583 cares about.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/100101
PR c++/99583
* pt.c (find_parameter_packs_r) [FUNCTION_TYPE]: Walk into
TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS here.
* tree.c (cp_walk_subtrees): Not here.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR c++/100101
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept67.C: New test.
(struct find_parameter_pack_data*)data;
bool parameter_pack_p = false;
+#define WALK_SUBTREE(NODE) \
+ cp_walk_tree (&(NODE), &find_parameter_packs_r, \
+ ppd, ppd->visited) \
+
/* Don't look through typedefs; we are interested in whether a
parameter pack is actually written in the expression/type we're
looking at, not the target type. */
ppd, ppd->visited);
return NULL_TREE;
+ case FUNCTION_TYPE:
+ case METHOD_TYPE:
+ WALK_SUBTREE (TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (t));
+ break;
+
default:
return NULL_TREE;
}
+#undef WALK_SUBTREE
+
return NULL_TREE;
}
}
break;
- case FUNCTION_TYPE:
- case METHOD_TYPE:
- WALK_SUBTREE (TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (*tp));
- break;
-
default:
return NULL_TREE;
}
--- /dev/null
+// PR c++/100101
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+template <typename T> struct A
+{
+ template <typename U> static char foo(U*, int* = 0);
+ static const bool value = sizeof(foo(static_cast<T*>(nullptr))) > 0;
+};
+
+template <bool b> struct B
+{
+ static const bool value = b;
+};
+
+template <typename T> struct C
+{
+ typedef B<A<T>::value> type;
+};
+
+template <typename T>
+void bar() noexcept(A<T>::value && C<T>::type::value) {}
+
+void baz()
+{
+ bar<void>();
+}