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:
> efriedma wrote:
> > 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.
> d572f82e490b alludes to `Expr::isConstantInitializer` being error
> prone...back in 2011...
>
> > Maybe the code in question shouldn't be using isConstantInitializer at all.
>
> Which code? My patch doesn't introduce explicit calls to that method.
> Which code?
Sema::CheckCompleteVariableDeclaration
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
