On 8/31/24 12:37 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
tested on x86_64-darwin/linux powerpc64le-linux,
OK for trunk? alternate suggestions?
thanks,
Iain
--- 8< ---
In examining the coroutine testcases for unexpected diagnostic output
for 'Wall', I found a 'statement has no effect' warning for the promise
construction in one case. In particular, the case is where the users
promise type has an implicit CTOR but a user-provided DTOR. Further, the
type does not actually need constructing.
In very early versions of the coroutines code we used to check
TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING() to determine whether to attempt to build
a constructor call for the promise. During review, it was suggested
to use type_build_ctor_call () instead.
This latter call checks the constructors in the type (both user-defined
and implicit) and returns true, amongst other cases if any of the found
CTORs are marked as deprecated.
In a number of places (for example [class.copy.ctor] / 6) the standard
says that some version of an implicit CTOR is deprecated when the user
provides a DTOR.
Thus, for this specific arrangement of promise type, type_build_ctor_call
returns true, because of (for example) a deprecated implicit copy CTOR.
We are not going to use any of the deprecated CTORs and thus will not
see warnings from this - however, since the call returned true, we have
now determined that we should attempt to build a constructor call.
Note as above, the type does not actually require construction and thus
one might expect either a NULL_TREE or error_mark_node in response to
the build_special_member_call (). However, in practice the function
returns the original instance object instead of a call or some error.
When we add that as a statement it triggers the 'statement has no effect'
warning.
The patch here rearranges the promise construction/destruction code to
allow for the case that a DTOR is required independently of a CTOR. In
addition, we check that the return from build_special_member_call () is
a call expression before we add it as a statement.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* coroutines.cc
(cp_coroutine_transform::build_ramp_function): Separate the
build of promise constructor and destructor. When evaluating
the constructor, check that build_special_member_call returns
a valid call expression before adding the statement.
Signed-off-by: Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk>
---
gcc/cp/coroutines.cc | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/cp/coroutines.cc b/gcc/cp/coroutines.cc
index 20bda5520c0..8cf87f1c135 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/coroutines.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/coroutines.cc
@@ -4893,16 +4893,12 @@ cp_coroutine_transform::build_ramp_function ()
tree p = build_class_member_access_expr (deref_fp, promise_m, NULL_TREE,
false, tf_warning_or_error);
- tree promise_dtor = NULL_TREE;
if (type_build_ctor_call (promise_type))
{
- /* Do a placement new constructor for the promise type (we never call
- the new operator, just the constructor on the object in place in the
- frame).
+ /* Construct the promise object [dcl.fct.def.coroutine] / 5.7.
- First try to find a constructor with the same parameter list as the
- original function (if it has params), failing that find a constructor
- with no parameter list. */
+ First try to find a constructor with an argument list comprised of
+ the parameter copies. */
if (DECL_ARGUMENTS (orig_fn_decl))
{
@@ -4914,19 +4910,29 @@ cp_coroutine_transform::build_ramp_function ()
else
r = NULL_TREE;
+ /* If that fails then the promise constructor argument list is empty. */
if (r == NULL_TREE || r == error_mark_node)
r = build_special_member_call (p, complete_ctor_identifier, NULL,
promise_type, LOOKUP_NORMAL,
tf_warning_or_error);
- finish_expr_stmt (r);
+ /* If type_build_ctor_call() encounters deprecated implicit CTORs it will
+ return true, and therefore we will execute this code path. However,
+ we might well not actually require a CTOR and under those conditions
+ the build call above will not return a call expression, but the
+ original instance object. Do not attempt to add the statement unless
+ it is a valid call. */
+ if (r && r != error_mark_node && TREE_CODE (r) == CALL_EXPR)
Maybe check TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS instead of for CALL_EXPR? OK with that
change.
+ finish_expr_stmt (r);
+ }
+ tree promise_dtor = cxx_maybe_build_cleanup (p, tf_warning_or_error);;
+ if (flag_exceptions && promise_dtor)
+ {
r = build_modify_expr (loc, coro_promise_live, boolean_type_node,
INIT_EXPR, loc, boolean_true_node,
boolean_type_node);
finish_expr_stmt (r);
-
- promise_dtor = cxx_maybe_build_cleanup (p, tf_warning_or_error);
}
tree get_ro
