aaron.ballman added a comment. In D111669#3088970 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111669#3088970>, @rjmccall wrote:
> Hmm. Generally these cases are expected to handle the situation where > there's no result slot passed in, which currently isn't exclusive to an > ignored result (although you could argue it should be). IIRC we usually > don't pass in a slot when evaluating an expression of agg type as anything > except an initializer, e.g. when evaluating the `E` in `E.member`. The > general fix is to call `EnsureDest` before accessing `Dest`. The only reason > we wouldn't need to do that is if `ConstantExpr` is restricted in where it > can appear such that that's impossible. Thank you for the suggestion to use `EnsureDest`, that worked like a charm. > Skipping an unnecessary initialization does sound like a good optimization in > general, but that's on top of the bug fix, not an alternative. > > Separately, seeing this code makes me worried that it doesn't support the > full set of constant initialization. We do have some kinds of constant > initialization that can't be emitted as abstract initializers, e.g. > address-diversified pointer auth. But we can deal with that as a separate > patch. FWIW, there are actually quite a few crashes during codegen involving consteval support (https://bugs.llvm.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=consteval&list_id=224889 has quite a few of them), so I share your worries. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D111669/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D111669 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
