On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 03:51:32PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 02:37:07PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > > On 7/20/23 14:13, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 10:11:27AM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote: > > > > On Tue, 18 Jul 2023, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > > > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk and > > > > > branches? > > > > > > > > Looks reasonable to me. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > Though I wonder if we could also fix this by not checking potentiality > > > > at all in this case? The problematic call to > > > > is_rvalue_constant_expression > > > > happens from cp_parser_constant_expression with 'allow_non_constant' != > > > > 0 > > > > and with 'non_constant_p' being a dummy out argument that comes from > > > > cp_parser_functional_cast, so the result of > > > > is_rvalue_constant_expression > > > > is effectively unused in this case, and we should be able to safely > > > > elide > > > > it when 'allow_non_constant && non_constant_p == nullptr'. > > > > > > Sounds plausible. I think my patch could be applied first since it > > > removes a tiny bit of code, then I can hopefully remove the flag below, > > > then maybe go back and optimize the call to is_rvalue_constant_expression. > > > Does that sound sensible? > > > > > > > Relatedly, ISTM the member cp_parser::non_integral_constant_expression_p > > > > is also effectively unused and could be removed? > > > > > > It looks that way. Seems it's only used in cp_parser_constant_expression: > > > 10806 if (allow_non_constant_p) > > > 10807 *non_constant_p = parser->non_integral_constant_expression_p; > > > but that could be easily replaced by a local var. I'd be happy to see if > > > we can actually do away with it. (I wonder why it was introduced and when > > > it actually stopped being useful.) > > > > It was for the C++98 notion of constant-expression, which was more of a > > parser-level notion, and has been supplanted by the C++11 version. I'm > > happy to remove it, and therefore remove the is_rvalue_constant_expression > > call. > > Wonderful. I'll do that next.
I found a use of parser->non_integral_constant_expression_p: finish_id_expression_1 can set it to true which then makes a difference in cp_parser_constant_expression in C++98. In cp_parser_constant_expression we set n_i_c_e_p to false, call cp_parser_assignment_expression in which finish_id_expression_1 sets n_i_c_e_p to true, then back in cp_parser_constant_expression we skip the cxx11 block, and set *non_constant_p to true. If I remove n_i_c_e_p, we lose that. This can be seen in init/array60.C. Marek
