On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:25 PM Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 11:06:17AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 8/6/19 3:20 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 03:54:19PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > On 7/31/19 3:26 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > > One of the features of constexpr is that it doesn't allow UB; and 
> > > > > such UB must
> > > > > be detected at compile-time.  So running your code in a context that 
> > > > > requires
> > > > > a constant expression should ensure that the code in question is free 
> > > > > of UB.
> > > > > In effect, constexpr can serve as a sanitizer.  E.g. this article 
> > > > > describes in
> > > > > in more detail:
> > > > > <https://shafik.github.io/c++/undefined%20behavior/2019/05/11/explporing_undefined_behavior_using_constexpr.html>
> > > > >
> > > > > [dcl.type.cv]p4 says "Any attempt to modify a const object during its 
> > > > > lifetime
> > > > > results in undefined behavior." However, as the article above points 
> > > > > out, we
> > > > > aren't detecting that case in constexpr evaluation.
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch fixes that.  It's not that easy, though, because we have 
> > > > > to keep in
> > > > > mind [class.ctor]p5:
> > > > > "A constructor can be invoked for a const, volatile or const volatile 
> > > > > object.
> > > > > const and volatile semantics are not applied on an object under 
> > > > > construction.
> > > > > They come into effect when the constructor for the most derived 
> > > > > object ends."
> > > > >
> > > > > I handled this by keeping a hash set which tracks objects under 
> > > > > construction.
> > > > > I considered other options, such as going up call_stack, but that 
> > > > > wouldn't
> > > > > work with trivial constructor/op=.  It was also interesting to find 
> > > > > out that
> > > > > the definition of TREE_HAS_CONSTRUCTOR says "When appearing in a 
> > > > > FIELD_DECL,
> > > > > it means that this field has been duly initialized in its 
> > > > > constructor" though
> > > > > nowhere in the codebase do we set TREE_HAS_CONSTRUCTOR on a 
> > > > > FIELD_DECL as far
> > > > > as I can see.  Unfortunately, using this bit proved useless for my 
> > > > > needs here.
> > > >
> > > > > Also, be mindful of mutable subobjects.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this approach look like an appropriate strategy for tracking 
> > > > > objects'
> > > > > construction?
> > > >
> > > > For scalar objects, we should be able to rely on INIT_EXPR vs. 
> > > > MODIFY_EXPR
> > > > to distinguish between initialization and modification; for class 
> > > > objects, I
> > >
> > > This is already true: only class object go into the hash set.
> > >
> > > > wonder about setting a flag on the CONSTRUCTOR after initialization is
> > > > complete to indicate that the value is now constant.
> > >
> > > But here we're not dealing with CONSTRUCTORs in the gcc sense (i.e. exprs 
> > > with
> > > TREE_CODE == CONSTRUCTOR).  We have a CALL_EXPR like Y::Y ((struct Y *) 
> > > &y),
> > > which initializes the object "y".  Setting a flag on the CALL_EXPR or its 
> > > underlying
> > > function decl wouldn't help.
> > >
> > > Am I missing something?
> >
> > I was thinking that where in your current patch you call
> > remove_object_under_construction, we could instead mark the object's value
> > CONSTRUCTOR as immutable.
>
> Ah, what you meant was to look at DECL_INITIAL of the object we're
> constructing, which could be a CONSTRUCTOR.  Unfortunately, this
> DECL_INITIAL is null (in all the new tests when doing
> remove_object_under_construction), so there's nothing to mark as 
> TREE_READONLY :/.

There's a value in ctx->values, isn't there?

Jason

Reply via email to