On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 05:00:51PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 07:03:45PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > The CALL_EXPR case in cp_fold uses !flag_no_inline instead, that makes > > > more > > > sense to me. > > > Because checking "noinline" attribute (which means don't inline this > > > function) on current_function_decl rather than on functions being > > > "inlined" > > > (the constexpr functions being non-manifestly constant evaluated) is just > > > weird. > > > If we really wanted, we could honor "noinline" during constant evaluation > > > on the CALL_EXPR/AGGR_INIT_EXPR fndecls, but dunno if whenever doing the > > > non-manifestly constant evaluated cases or just in special cases like > > > these > > > two (CALL_EXPR in cp_fold, this in cp_fold_r). > > > > Checking noinline in non-manifestly constant-evaluated cases might make > > sense. > > Though, if somebody marks some function explicitly constexpr they should be > prepared to get some constexpr evaluation of it, doesn't have to be strictly > standard required one.
Yeah, I would agree with that. > And for -fimplicit-constexpr we already have "noinline" attribute check, so > maybe it is ok as is. Yeah. I dropped the "noinline" attribute check though because I no longer see any need for it. Marek
