Here we're tripping over the assert in extract_locals_r which enforces
that an extra-args tree appearing inside another extra-args tree doesn't
actually have extra args. This invariant doesn't always hold for lambdas
(which recently gained the extra-args mechanism) but that should be
harmless since cp_walk_subtrees doesn't walk LAMBDA_EXPR_EXTRA_ARGS and
so should be immune to the PR114303 issue for now. So let's just disable
this assert for lambdas.
PR c++/117054
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* pt.cc (extract_locals_r): Disable tree_extra_args assert
for LAMBDA_EXPR.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp2a/lambda-targ9.C: New test.
Reviewed-by: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
outermost tree. Nested *_EXTRA_ARGS should naturally be empty since
the outermost (extra-args) tree will intercept any substitution before
a nested tree can. */
- gcc_checking_assert (tree_extra_args (*tp) == NULL_TREE);
+ gcc_checking_assert (tree_extra_args (*tp) == NULL_TREE
+ /* Except a lambda nested inside an extra-args tree
+ can have extra args if we deferred partial
+ substitution into it at template parse time. But
+ we don't walk LAMBDA_EXPR_EXTRA_ARGS anyway. */
+ || TREE_CODE (*tp) == LAMBDA_EXPR);
if (TREE_CODE (*tp) == DECL_EXPR)
{
--- /dev/null
+// PR c++/117054
+// { dg-do compile { target c++20 } }
+
+template<auto = []{}>
+constexpr bool v = true;
+
+template<typename>
+void f() {
+ [](auto) {
+ if constexpr (v<>) { }
+ }(0);
+}
+
+int main() {
+ f<int>();
+}