efriedma 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;
----------------
nickdesaulniers wrote:
> nickdesaulniers wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> Oh, perhaps it should simply be:
>
> ```
> if (Info.EvalMode == EvalInfo::EM_ConstantFold && E->isXValue())
> return false;
> ```
>
> let me add your test case for that, too.
It looks like that case is using Expr::isConstantInitializer, which uses
EM_ConstantFold, which then blows up. No combination of the checks you're
trying will let you distinguish between that case and the case you're trying to
bail out; in both cases, the EvalMode is EvalMode, it's an lvalue, and the
storage duration is static.
Maybe the code in question shouldn't be using isConstantInitializer at all.
Checking for a reference type doesn't solve anything; it just makes the issues
more complicated to reproduce.
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
