The main problem, Jonas, is that there will be times where the
enumeration will take on a value that is outside of its domain, and
often through ways that we cannot help, such as external data being in
the wrong format. I'm all for compiler optimisations assuming that the
value is in range for case blocks and conditional shortcutting, but
there needs to be a reliable way to get a "Yes" or "No" answer as to if
it's valid or not that won't fall foul of these assumptions, hence my
suggestion of an intrinsic or, as with Ondrej's patch, the "is" operator.
I suppose with the bitpacked version... admittedly I can't think of a
construct off-hand that would break it, but if someone knows of one,
then I can definitely evaluate it.
All in all though, we need /something/, because one can argue about
language semantics until the cows come home, but here is a reproducible
situation that cannot be reliably accounted for without ditching
enumerations entirely, which will only serve to obfuscate third-party
code for no obvious reason.
Gareth aka. Kit
On 02/07/2019 22:34, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 02/07/2019 22:31, Ondrej Pokorny wrote:
var
Value: TEnumType;
begin
Value := TEnumType(-1);
IsValid := Value is TEnumType; // IsValid gains false
The compiler may not do any optimizations here (like return always true
if the left side value is the enum type at the right side). This should
be clearly stated and documented if the feature is added to FPC.
Whenever you need an exception like this, it means that the behaviour
does not fit in the language. As a result, it would make the language
(more) inconsistent and harder to reason about, even independently of
optimizations. E.g. if Value is inside a bitpacked array or record,
IsValid will may well be true instead of false, because a bunch of bits
were thrown away during the assignment. This shows that the only place
where the checking can reliably happen, is during the initial conversion
(which should have been done with "as" in this scenario).
And yes, it also complicates compilers/optimizers, because you have to
make sure you handle this special case everywhere, now and forever. E.g.
it would make it impossible to add range annotations for enum types in
LLVM bitcode without adding volatile load hacks all over the place.
This is similar to the object-is operator that gets evaluated as well
even if the type of the left-side value is the type at right side:
var
Value: TPersistent;
begin
Value := TPersistent(TObject.Create);
IsValid := Value is TPersistent; // IsValid gains false
This is an invalid program. If you compile with -CR, the program will
abort with an error when the typecast is performed, because it will get
replaced by an "as" operation. In that sense, "integer as enum" would
indeed be somewhat similar, and -CR might even be extended to perform
the same replacement of explicit typecasts with "as" operators for these
types.
As an example of an operation on the resulting "Value" that is already
undefined: if you would call a TPersistent virtual method on it, and
whole-program optimization devirtualised that call, it may call the
"correct" method of TPersistent instead of using the VMT of whatever
other class instance type Value points to.
Invalid data means undefined behaviour, always. "is" is not a special
case that is immune to this. And e.g. in the context of generics,
simplifying/removing such checks where possible would probably be quite
desirable.
As to your patch itself: why do you not directly compare the
tconstexprint values directly, and use the svalue/uvalue fields instead?
Jonas
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
