hans marked an inline comment as done.
hans added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:4344
+ (Record->hasTrivialDestructor() ||
+ Record->hasConstexprDestructor());
}
----------------
efriedma wrote:
> For the purposes of CodeGen, checking `Record->hasConstexprDestructor()`
> isn't really helpful. Even if `Record->hasConstexprDestructor()` is true, a
> destructor can still have side-effects. Since the callers need to handle
> that possibility anyway, you might as well just skip the
> `Record->hasTrivialDestructor() || Record->hasConstexprDestructor()` check.
Maybe what we want is to also have an `ExcludeDtor` param that callers which
have checked that no dtor call is needed could set?
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGenCXX/static-init.cpp:181
+#if __cplusplus >= 202002L
+// A const object with constexpr destructor can be emitted as a constant.
+namespace test5 {
----------------
efriedma wrote:
> I don't see how this works. For a static local variable, in general, we
> register the destructor with __cxa_atexit, and the destructor can have
> arbitrary side-effects. For example:
>
> ```
> extern void foo();
> struct A {
> constexpr A() : x(1) {}
> constexpr ~A() {if (x) foo();}
> int x;
> };
> const int *f() {
> static const A a{};
> return &a.x;
> }
> ```
Hmm, I guess I assumed the destructor being constexpr meant it wouldn't have
side effects, which of course isn't necessarily true.. thanks for the example.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145369/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145369
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
