On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:19:34AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 09:37:53AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:56:37PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote: > >> > The patch for P0595R1 - is_constant_evaluated had this hunk: > >> > > >> > @@ -5279,7 +5315,9 @@ maybe_constant_init_1 (tree t, tree decl, bool > >> > allow_non_constant) > >> > else if (CONSTANT_CLASS_P (t) && allow_non_constant) > >> > /* No evaluation needed. */; > >> > else > >> > - t = cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr (t, allow_non_constant, false, > >> > decl); > >> > + t = cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr (t, allow_non_constant, > >> > + !allow_non_constant, > >> > + pretend_const_required, decl); > >> > if (TREE_CODE (t) == TARGET_EXPR) > >> > { > >> > tree init = TARGET_EXPR_INITIAL (t); > >> > > >> > the false -> !allow_non_constant change means that when calling > >> > cxx_constant_init strict will be true because cxx_constant_init does not > >> > allow > >> > non constants. That means that for VAR_DECLs such as __func__ we'll call > >> > decl_really_constant_value instead of decl_constant_value. But only the > >> > latter > >> > can evaluate __func__ to "foo()". > >> > > >> > Jakub, was there a specific reason for this change? Changing it back > >> > still > >> > regtests cleanly and the attached test compiles again. > >> > >> It just didn't feel right that cxx_constant_init which looks like a > >> function > >> that requires strict conformance still passes false as strict. > >> If there is a reason to pass false, I think we need a comment that explains > >> it. > > > > I think we use strict = true for *_constant_value, but *_constant_init > > should > > get strict = false. > > Right. In _init we try to get constant values for more than just C++ > constant expressions.
Is the patch OK then? Marek