1 files changed, 100 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/source/d/gcc/patches/PR100101.2efbbba16a0630fac8cadcd6d9e0ffaabfadb79f.patch b/source/d/gcc/patches/PR100101.2efbbba16a0630fac8cadcd6d9e0ffaabfadb79f.patch
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..51ee459fd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/source/d/gcc/patches/PR100101.2efbbba16a0630fac8cadcd6d9e0ffaabfadb79f.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+From 2efbbba16a0630fac8cadcd6d9e0ffaabfadb79f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
+Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 13:38:54 -0400
+Subject: [PATCH] c++: noexcept error recursion [PR100101]
+
+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.
+
+gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
+
+	PR c++/100101
+	* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept67.C: New test.
+---
+ gcc/cp/pt.c                             | 11 +++++++++++
+ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept67.C | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
+ create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept67.C
+
+diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.c b/gcc/cp/pt.c
+index 0f119a55272..2190f83882a 100644
+--- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
++++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
+@@ -3890,6 +3890,10 @@ find_parameter_packs_r (tree *tp, int *walk_subtrees, void* data)
+     (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.  */
+@@ -4070,10 +4074,17 @@ find_parameter_packs_r (tree *tp, int *walk_subtrees, void* data)
+ 			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;
+ }
+ 
+diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept67.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept67.C
+new file mode 100644
+index 00000000000..7f061034323
+--- /dev/null
++++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept67.C
+@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
++// 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>();
++}
+-- 
+2.27.0
+
+