On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 7:32 AM Martin Uecker <muec...@gwdg.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> (resending from a different account, as emails seem to do not
> go out from my other account at this time)
>
> Am Montag, den 02.08.2021, 16:05 +0200 schrieb Martin Uecker:
> > > On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 7:37 PM Uecker, Martin
> > > <martin.uec...@med.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here is an attempt to fix some old and annoying bugs related
> > > > to VLAs and statement expressions. In particulary, this seems
> > > > to fix the issues with variably-modified types which are
> > > > returned from statement expressions (which works on clang),
> > > > but there are still bugs remaining related to structs
> > > > with VLA members (which seems to be a FE bug).
> > > >
> > > > Of course, I might be doing something stupid...
> > >
> > > How's evaluation order of (f())[g()] defined (with f returning a
> > > pointer)?
> > > Isn't that just f() + g()*sizeof(int) and thus undefined?
> >
> > Yes, in C it is
> >
> > f() + g()
> >
> > and it is unsequenced. But the order of 'f' and 'g'
> > is not relevant here and also the patch does not change
> > it (the base expression is gimplified before the index).
> >
> > Essentially, we have
> >
> > ({ ... }) + g() * sizeof(X)
> >
> > where X refers to a declaration in the statement expression.
> > Without the patch the size expressions are gimplified before
> > the base expression and also before the index expression.
> > With the patch the ({ ... }) is gimplified also before the
> > size expression.
> >
> > > If it's undefined then I think the incoming GENERIC is ill-defined.
> >
> > I think it is OK because the arguments are evaluated
> > before the operation. Without the patch, parts of the
> > operation (the size expressions) are gimplified before
> > the arguments and this seems wrong to me.
But you said the evaluation order is undefined. So IMHO
the GENERIC is undefined in evaluating the size of sth
that's not live? That said, given the statement expression
result undergoes array to pointer decay doesn't this pointer
refer to an object that ended its lifetime?
"In a statement expression, any temporaries created within a statement
are destroyed at that statement's end."
That is, don't the testcases all invoke undefined behavior at runtime?
Richard.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
