On Thu, 16 Mar 2023, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 3/16/23 10:09, Patrick Palka wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Patrick Palka wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > > > > > On 3/9/23 14:32, Patrick Palka wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 6 Mar 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > When processing a noexcept, constructors aren't elided: > > > > > > build_over_call > > > > > > has > > > > > > /* It's unsafe to elide the constructor when handling > > > > > > a noexcept-expression, it may evaluate to the wrong > > > > > > value (c++/53025). */ > > > > > > && (force_elide || cp_noexcept_operand == 0)) > > > > > > so the assert I added recently needs to be relaxed a little bit. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk? > > > > > > > > > > > > PR c++/109030 > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog: > > > > > > > > > > > > * constexpr.cc (cxx_eval_call_expression): Relax assert. > > > > > > > > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > > > > > > > > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C: New test. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 6 +++++- > > > > > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C | 9 +++++++++ > > > > > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept77.C > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc > > > > > > index 364695b762c..5384d0e8e46 100644 > > > > > > --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc > > > > > > +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc > > > > > > @@ -2869,7 +2869,11 @@ cxx_eval_call_expression (const constexpr_ctx > > > > > > *ctx, > > > > > > tree t, > > > > > > /* We used to shortcut trivial constructor/op= here, but > > > > > > nowadays > > > > > > we can only get a trivial function here with > > > > > > -fno-elide-constructors. */ > > > > > > - gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun) || > > > > > > !flag_elide_constructors); > > > > > > + gcc_checking_assert (!trivial_fn_p (fun) > > > > > > + || !flag_elide_constructors > > > > > > + /* We don't elide constructors when processing > > > > > > + a noexcept-expression. */ > > > > > > + || cp_noexcept_operand); > > > > > > > > > > It seems weird that we're performing constant evaluation within an > > > > > unevaluated operand. Would it make sense to also fix this a second > > > > > way > > > > > by avoiding constant evaluation from maybe_constant_init when > > > > > cp_unevaluated_operand && !manifestly_const_eval, like in > > > > > maybe_constant_value? > > > > > > > > Sounds good. > > > > > > Hmm, while working on this I noticed we currently don't reject a version > > > of > > > g++.dg/cpp2a/constexpr-inst1.C that list initializes an aggregate instead > > > of > > > int (ever since r12-4425-g1595fe44e11a96): > > > > > > struct A { int m; }; > > > template<typename T> constexpr int f() { return T::value; } > > > template<bool B, typename T> void h(decltype(A{B ? f<T>() : 0})); // > > > was int{...} > > > template<bool B, typename T> void h(...); > > > void x() { > > > h<false, int>(0); // OK? > > > } > > > > > > ISTM we should instantiate f<int> here for the same reason we do in the > > > original version of the testcase, and for that to happen we need to > > > pass manifestly_const_eval=true in massage_init_elt. Does that seem > > > reasonable? > > > > > > > FWIW the reason this came up is because I tried contriving a testcase > > for the aforementioned maybe_constant_init change, and I came up with: > > > > struct __as_receiver { > > int empty_env; > > }; > > > > template<class T> > > constexpr int f(T t) { > > return t.fail; > > }; > > > > using type = decltype(__as_receiver{f(0)}); // OK, f<int> no longer > > instantiated > > > > which we used to reject and afterwards accept. But since the elements > > of an initializer list are potentially constant evaluated, I wonder if > > that that means f<int> should be instantiated here after all despite the > > unevaluated context? > > The relevant section of the standard would seem to be > https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.const#20 ; an immediate subexpression of a > braced-init-list is potentially constant-evaluated even though it isn't > potentially-evaluated or manifestly constant-evaluated. > > It seems like the call to fold_non_dependent_expr in check_narrowing ought to > cause instantiation in this case, why doesn't it?
Looks like check_narrowing isn't called at all in this aggr init case. The call from e.g. convert_like_internal isn't reached because the conversion for the initializer element is ck_identity, and don't ever set conversion::check_narrowing for ck_identity conversions I think. Yet for using 'type = decltype(int{f(0)});' (similar to the example in [temp.inst]/8) we do call check_narrowing directly from finish_compound_literal, despite the conversion effectively being an identity conversion. > > > Here's the full patch for reference: > > > > -- >8 -- > > > > Subject: [PATCH] c++: maybe_constant_init and unevaluated operands > > [PR109030] > > > > This testcase in this PR (already fixed by r13-6526-ge4692319fd5fc7) > > illustrates that maybe_constant_init can be called on an unevaluated > > operand (from massage_init_elt), so this entry point should limit > > constant evaluation in that case, like maybe_constant_value does. > > > > PR c++/109030 > > > > gcc/cp/ChangeLog: > > > > * constexpr.cc (maybe_constant_init_1): For an unevaluated > > non-manifestly-constant operand, don't constant evaluate > > and instead call fold_to_constant. > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C: New test. > > --- > > gcc/cp/constexpr.cc | 2 ++ > > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C | 14 ++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C > > > > diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc > > index 8683c00596a..f325af375c8 100644 > > --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc > > +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc > > @@ -8795,6 +8795,8 @@ maybe_constant_init_1 (tree t, tree decl, bool > > allow_non_constant, > > && (TREE_STATIC (decl) || DECL_EXTERNAL (decl))); > > if (is_static) > > manifestly_const_eval = true; > > + if (cp_unevaluated_operand && !manifestly_const_eval) > > + return fold_to_constant (t); > > t = cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr (t, allow_non_constant, > > !is_static, > > mce_value (manifestly_const_eval), > > false, decl); > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C > > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000..17005a92eb5 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype83.C > > @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ > > +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } } > > + > > +struct __as_receiver { > > + int empty_env; > > +}; > > + > > +template<class T> > > +constexpr int f(T t) { > > + return t.fail; > > +}; > > + > > +int main() { > > + using type = decltype(__as_receiver{f(0)}); // OK, f<int> not > > instantiated > > +} > >