On 04/26/2016 05:59 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
PR c++/66639 asked to declare __func__ , __FUNCTION__ and
__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ as constexpr​. With the request fulfilled
sometime in the 6.0 time frame (possibly as a result of fixing
c++/70353), the attached patch implements the corresponding
change suggested in c++/66561 - __builtin_LINE at al. should
yield constant expression, and updates the manual to reflect
both. It has been tested on x86_64 Linux.
Martin
gcc-66561.patch
PR c++/66561 - __builtin_LINE at al. should yield constant expressions
PR c++/66639 - declare __func__ , __FUNCTION__ & __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ constexpr
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2016-04-26 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
PR c++/66561
* c-c++-common/builtin_location.c: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp1y/builtin_location.C: New test.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
2016-04-26 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
PR c++/66561
* tree.c (builtin_valid_in_constant_expr_p): Treat BUILT_IN_FILE,
BUILT_IN_FUNCTION, and BUILT_IN_LINE as constant expressions.
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-04-26 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
PR c++/66561
* builtins.c (fold_builtin_FILE): New function.
(fold_builtin_FUNCTION, fold_builtin_LINE): New functions.
(fold_builtin_0): Call them.
PR c++/66561
* doc/extend.texi (Other Builtins): Update __builtin_FILE,
__builtin_FUNCTION, and __builtin_LINE to reflect they yield
constants.
PR c++/66639
* doc/extend.texi (Function Names as Strings): Update __func__,
__FUNCTION__, __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ to reflect they evaluate to
constants.
diff --git a/gcc/builtins.c b/gcc/builtins.c
index 3d89baf..44c4f63 100644
--- a/gcc/builtins.c
+++ b/gcc/builtins.c
@@ -7927,6 +7927,39 @@ fold_builtin_arith_overflow (location_t loc, enum
built_in_function fcode,
return build2_loc (loc, COMPOUND_EXPR, boolean_type_node, store, ovfres);
}
+/* Fold __builtin_FILE() to a constant string. */
NIT: When we refer to functions, we don't have the trailing(). So drop
it from the comment.
+
+/* Fold __builtin_FUNCTION() to a constant string. */
Similarly.
+
+/* Fold __builtin_LINE() to an integer constant. */
Similarly.
So the big question I have is why we have to treat these differently
than __func__ __FUNCTION__ and __PRETTY_FUNCTION__.
Which leads me to:
constexpr_fn_retval which has:
case DECL_EXPR:
{
tree decl = DECL_EXPR_DECL (body);
if (TREE_CODE (decl) == USING_DECL
/* Accept __func__, __FUNCTION__, and __PRETTY_FUNCTION__. */
|| DECL_ARTIFICIAL (decl))
return NULL_TREE;
return error_mark_node;
}
Is the distinction here that the _builtin_XXX are essentially functions,
yet the others are _DECLs? Thus we have to fold the builtin function so
that it is considered a constant?
jeff
