On 2/10/22 23:01, Zhao Wei Liew wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 at 00:14, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:

On 2/9/22 21:18, Zhao Wei Liew via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi!

I wrote a patch for PR 25689, but I feel like it may not be the ideal
fix. Furthermore, there are some standing issues with the patch for
which I would like tips on how to fix them.
Specifically, there are 2 issues:
1. GCC warns about  if (a.operator=(0)). That said, this may not be a
major issue as I don't think such code is widely written.

Can you avoid this by checking CALL_EXPR_OPERATOR_SYNTAX?

Thanks! It worked. There is no longer a warning for `if (a.operator=(0))`.
The updated patch is at the bottom of this email.


2. GCC does not warn for `if (a = b)` where the default copy/move
assignment operator is used.

The code for trivial copy-assignment should be pretty recognizable, as a
MODIFY_EXPR of two MEM_REFs; it's built in build_over_call after the
comment "We must only copy the non-tail padding parts."

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks! However, it seems like that's the case only
for non-empty classes. GCC already warns for MODIFY_EXPR, so there's
nothing we need to do there.

On the other hand, for empty classes, it seems that a COMPOUND_EXPR
is built in build_over_call under the is_really_empty_class guard (line 9791).
I don't understand the tree structure that I should identify though.
Could you give me any further explanations on that?

True, that's not very recognizable. I suppose we could use a TREE_LANG_FLAG to mark that COMPOUND_EXPR, or we could leave empty classes alone; neither assignment nor comparison of empty classes should happen much in practice.

-  if (TREE_CODE (cond) == MODIFY_EXPR
+  /* Also check if this is a call to operator=().
+     Example: if (my_struct = 5) {...}
+  */
+  tree fndecl = NULL_TREE;
+  if (TREE_OPERAND_LENGTH(cond) >= 1) {
+    fndecl = cp_get_callee_fndecl(TREE_OPERAND(cond, 0));

Let's use cp_get_callee_fndecl_nofold.

Please add a space before all (

Got it. May I know why it's better to use *_nofold here?

To avoid trying to do constexpr evaluation of the function operand when it's non-constant; in the interesting cases it won't be needed.

However, have you tested virtual operator=?

On an unrelated note, I adjusted the if condition to use INDIRECT_REF_P (cond)
instead of TREE_OPERAND_LENGTH (cond) >= 1.
I hope that's better for semantics.

Yes; REFERENCE_REF_P might be even better.

------Everything below is the updated patch-----

When compiling the following code with g++ -Wparentheses, GCC does not
warn on the if statement:

struct A {
        A& operator=(int);
        operator bool();
};

void f(A a) {
        if (a = 0); // no warning
}

This is because a = 0 is a call to operator=, which GCC does not check
for.

This patch fixes that by checking for calls to operator= when deciding
to warn.

v1: gcc:gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590158.html
Changes since v1:
1. Use CALL_EXPR_OPERATOR_SYNTAX to avoid warnings for explicit
    operator=() calls.
2. Use INDIRECT_REF_P to filter implicit operator=() calls.
3. Use cp_get_callee_fndecl_nofold.
4. Add spaces before (.

        PR c/25689

gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

        * semantics.cc (maybe_convert_cond): Handle the operator=() case
          as well.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

        * g++.dg/warn/Wparentheses-31.C: New test.
---
  gcc/cp/semantics.cc                         | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
  gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wparentheses-31.C | 11 +++++++++++
  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
  create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wparentheses-31.C

diff --git a/gcc/cp/semantics.cc b/gcc/cp/semantics.cc
index 466d6b56871f4..b45903a6a6fde 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/semantics.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/semantics.cc
@@ -836,7 +836,23 @@ maybe_convert_cond (tree cond)
    /* Do the conversion.  */
    cond = convert_from_reference (cond);

-  if (TREE_CODE (cond) == MODIFY_EXPR
+  /* Check for operator syntax calls to operator=().
+     Example: if (my_struct = 5) {...}
+  */
+  tree fndecl = NULL_TREE;
+  if (INDIRECT_REF_P (cond)) {

The { should go on the next line.

+    tree fn = TREE_OPERAND (cond, 0);
+    if (TREE_CODE (fn) == CALL_EXPR
+        && CALL_EXPR_OPERATOR_SYNTAX (fn)) {
+      fndecl = cp_get_callee_fndecl_nofold (fn);
+    }
+  }
+
+  if ((TREE_CODE (cond) == MODIFY_EXPR
+        || (fndecl != NULL_TREE
+        && DECL_OVERLOADED_OPERATOR_P (fndecl)
+        && DECL_OVERLOADED_OPERATOR_IS (fndecl, NOP_EXPR)
+        && DECL_ASSIGNMENT_OPERATOR_P (fndecl)))
        && warn_parentheses
        && !warning_suppressed_p (cond, OPT_Wparentheses)
        && warning_at (cp_expr_loc_or_input_loc (cond),
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wparentheses-31.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wparentheses-31.C
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..abd7476ccb461
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wparentheses-31.C
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+/* PR c/25689 */
+/* { dg-options "-Wparentheses" }  */
+
+struct A {
+       A& operator=(int);
+       operator bool();
+};
+
+void f(A a) {
+       if (a = 0); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
+}
--
2.17.1


Reply via email to