nickdesaulniers added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp:8360
+  // Do not constant fold an R-value.
+  if (Info.EvalMode == EvalInfo::EM_ConstantFold && !E->isLValue())
+    return false;
----------------
efriedma wrote:
> nickdesaulniers wrote:
> > efriedma wrote:
> > > Checking isLValue() doesn't make sense; consider:
> > > 
> > > ```
> > > struct R { mutable long x; };
> > > struct Z { const R &x, y; };
> > > Z z = { R{1}, z.x.x=10 };
> > > ```
> > > 
> > > Maybe also want to check for EM_IgnoreSideEffects?  Not sure what cases, 
> > > if any, that would affect.
> > > 
> > > We should probably check `E->getStorageDuration() == SD_Static`.  The 
> > > cases where it's a local temporary don't hit the getOrCreateValue() 
> > > codepath, so the evaluated value should be handled correctly.
> > > 
> > > Checking EvalMode feels a little weird, but I guess it should do the 
> > > right thing in the cases I can think of?  I'd like a second opinion on 
> > > this.
> > Changing this condition to:
> > ```
> > if (E->getStorageDuration() == SD_Static &&                                 
> >   
> >     Info.EvalMode == EvalInfo::EM_ConstantFold &&                           
> >   
> >     E->isXValue())                                                          
> >   
> >   return false;
> > ```
> > allows all tests in tree to pass, but messes up the test case you posted 
> > above. I'm trying to sus out what else might be different about that test 
> > case...we should return `false` for that, but I'm not sure what's different 
> > about that case.
> > 
> > In particular, I was playing with `E->isUsableInConstantExpressions` and 
> > `E->getLifetimeExtendedTemporaryDecl()`, but getting your case to work, I 
> > end up regressing 
> > clang/test/SemaCXX/attr-require-constant-initialization.cpp...argh!!
> Shouldn't that just be the following?
> 
> ```
> if (E->getStorageDuration() == SD_Static &&                                   
>     Info.EvalMode == EvalInfo::EM_ConstantFold)                               
>                              
>   return false;
> ```
> 
> A materialized temporary is always going to be either an LValue or an XValue, 
> and the difference between the two isn't relevant here.
I wish it were that simple. Checking those two alone will produce failures in 
the following tests:

Failed Tests (2):
  Clang :: CodeGenCXX/mangle-ms.cpp
  Clang :: SemaCXX/attr-require-constant-initialization.cpp

error: 'error' diagnostics seen but not expected: 
  File 
/android0/llvm-project/clang/test/SemaCXX/attr-require-constant-initialization.cpp
 Line 92: variable does not have a constant initializer

as an example of one failure, which is basically:

```
void foo(void) {
  __attribute__((require_constant_initialization)) static const int &temp_init 
= 42;
}
```
specifically, `-std=c++03` is the only language version that fails.



Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D151587/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D151587

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to