================ @@ -908,6 +908,69 @@ void CodeGenFunction::EmitIfStmt(const IfStmt &S) { incrementProfileCounter(&S); } +bool CodeGenFunction::checkIfLoopMustProgress(const Expr *ControllingExpression, + bool HasEmptyBody) { + if (CGM.getCodeGenOpts().getFiniteLoops() == + CodeGenOptions::FiniteLoopsKind::Never) + return false; + + // Now apply rules for plain C (see 6.8.5.6 in C11). + // Loops with constant conditions do not have to make progress in any C + // version. + // As an extension, we consisider loops whose constant expression + // can be constant-folded. + Expr::EvalResult Result; + bool CondIsConstInt = ---------------- efriedma-quic wrote:
As a standards-wording issue, the standard has to do *something* here: it doesn't define what it means to constant-evaluate something in a context that isn't manifestly constant-evaluated. As a practical matter, it's very unlikely the precise wording the standard uses actually matters, sure. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90066 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits