On 08/24/2015 03:15 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
2015-08-03 17:39 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>:
On 08/03/2015 05:42 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
2015-08-03 5:49 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>:
On 07/31/2015 05:54 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
The "STRIP_NOPS-requirement in 'reduced_constant_expression_p'" I could
remove, but for one case in constexpr. Without folding we don't do
type-sinking/raising.
Right.
So binary/unary operations might be containing cast, which were in the
past unexpected.
Why aren't the casts folded away?
On such cast constructs, as for this vector-sample, we can't fold away
Which testcase is this?
It is the g++.dg/ext/vector20.C testcase. IIRC I mentioned this
testcase already earlier as reference, but I might be wrong here.
I don't see any casts in that testcase. So the compiler is introducing
introducing conversions back and forth between const and non-const,
then? I suppose it doesn't so much matter where they come from, they
should be folded away regardless.
the cast chain. The difference here to none-delayed-folding branch is
that the cast isn't moved out of the plus-expr. What we see now is
(plus ((vec) (const vector ...) { .... }), ...). Before we had (vec)
(plus (const vector ...) { ... }).
How could a PLUS_EXPR be considered a reduced constant, regardless of where
the cast is?
Of course it is just possible to sink out a cast from PLUS_EXPR, in
pretty few circumstance (eg. on constants if both types just differ in
const-attribute, if conversion is no view-convert).
I don't understand how this is an answer to my question.
On verify_constant we check by reduced_constant_expression_p, if value is
a constant. We don't handle here, that NOP_EXPRs are something we want to
look through here, as it doesn't change anything if this is a constant, or
not.
NOPs around constants should have been folded away by the time we get
there.
Not in this cases, as the we actually have here a switch from const to
none-const. So there is an attribute-change, which we can't ignore in
general.
I wasn't suggesting we ignore it, we should be able to change the type of
the vector_cst.
Well, the vector_cst we can change type, but this wouldn't help
AFAICS. As there is still one cast surviving within PLUS_EXPR for the
other operand.
Isn't the other operand also constant? In constexpr evaluation, either
we're dealing with a bunch of constants, in which case we should be
folding things fully, including conversions between const and non-const,
or we don't care.
So the way to solve it would be to move such conversion out of the
expression. For integer-scalars we do this, and for some
floating-points too. So it might be something we don't handle for
operations with vector-type.
We don't need to worry about that in constexpr evaluation, since we only
care about constant operands.
But I agree that for constexpr's we could special case cast
from const to none-const (as required in expressions like const vec v
= v + 1).
Right. But really this should happen in convert.c, it shouldn't be specific
to C++.
Hmm, maybe. But isn't one of our different goals to move such
implicit code-modification to match.pd instead?
Folding const into a constant is hardly code modification. But perhaps
it should go into fold_unary_loc:VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR rather than into
convert.c.
Jason