Here we ICE because we call register_local_specialization while
local_specializations is null, so
local_specializations->put ();
crashes on null this. It's null since maybe_instantiate_noexcept calls
push_to_top_level which creates a new scope. Normally, I would have
guessed that we need a new local_specialization_stack. But here we're
dealing with an operand of a noexcept, which is an unevaluated operand,
and those aren't registered in the hash map. maybe_instantiate_noexcept
wasn't signalling that it's substituting an unevaluated operand though.
PR c++/114114
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* pt.cc (maybe_instantiate_noexcept): Save/restore
cp_unevaluated_operand, c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings, and
cp_noexcept_operand around the tsubst_expr call.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept84.C: New test.
if (orig_fn)
++processing_template_decl;
+ ++cp_unevaluated_operand;
+ ++c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
+ ++cp_noexcept_operand;
/* Do deferred instantiation of the noexcept-specifier. */
noex = tsubst_expr (DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT_PATTERN (noex),
DEFERRED_NOEXCEPT_ARGS (noex),
tf_warning_or_error, fn);
+ --cp_unevaluated_operand;
+ --c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings;
+ --cp_noexcept_operand;
/* Build up the noexcept-specification. */
spec = build_noexcept_spec (noex, tf_warning_or_error);
--- /dev/null
+// PR c++/114114
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+template<bool B>
+constexpr void
+test ()
+{
+ constexpr bool is_yes = B;
+ struct S {
+ constexpr S() noexcept(is_yes) { }
+ };
+ S s;
+}
+
+constexpr bool foo() { return true; }
+
+template<typename T>
+constexpr void
+test2 ()
+{
+ constexpr T (*pfn)() = &foo;
+ struct S {
+ constexpr S() noexcept(pfn()) { }
+ };
+ S s;
+}
+
+int main()
+{
+ test<true>();
+ test2<bool>();
+}