On 9/13/23 16:56, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 05:26:25PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/8/23 14:24, Marek Polacek wrote:
+ switch (TREE_CODE (stmt))
+ {
+ /* Unfortunately we must handle code like
+ false ? bar () : 42
+ where we have to check bar too. */
+ case COND_EXPR:
+ if (cp_fold_immediate_r (&TREE_OPERAND (stmt, 1), walk_subtrees, data))
+ return error_mark_node;
+ if (TREE_OPERAND (stmt, 2)
+ && cp_fold_immediate_r (&TREE_OPERAND (stmt, 2), walk_subtrees, data))
+ return error_mark_node;
Is this necessary? Doesn't walk_tree already walk into the arms of
COND_EXPR?
Unfortunately yes. The cp_fold call in cp_fold_r could fold the ?: into
a constant before we see it here. I've added a comment saying just that.
Ah. But in that case I guess we need to walk into the arms, not just
check the top-level expression in them.
But maybe cp_fold_r should do that before the cp_fold, instead of this
function?
+ break;
+
case PTRMEM_CST:
if (TREE_CODE (PTRMEM_CST_MEMBER (stmt)) == FUNCTION_DECL
&& DECL_IMMEDIATE_FUNCTION_P (PTRMEM_CST_MEMBER (stmt)))
{
- if (!data->pset.add (stmt))
+ if (!data->pset.add (stmt) && (complain & tf_error))
error_at (PTRMEM_CST_LOCATION (stmt),
"taking address of an immediate function %qD",
PTRMEM_CST_MEMBER (stmt));
stmt = *stmt_p = build_zero_cst (TREE_TYPE (stmt));
It looks like this will overwrite *stmt_p even if we didn't give an error.
I suppose that could result in missing errors, adjusted. And there's no
point in setting stmt.
- break;
+ return error_mark_node;
}
break;
+ /* Expand immediate invocations. */
+ case CALL_EXPR:
+ case AGGR_INIT_EXPR:
+ if (tree fn = cp_get_callee (stmt))
+ if (TREE_CODE (fn) != ADDR_EXPR || ADDR_EXPR_DENOTES_CALL_P (fn))
+ if (tree fndecl = cp_get_fndecl_from_callee (fn, /*fold*/false))
+ if (DECL_IMMEDIATE_FUNCTION_P (fndecl))
+ {
+ *stmt_p = stmt = cxx_constant_value (stmt, complain);
Likewise.
I think we have to keep setting *stmt_p to actually evaluate consteval
functions.
But only when it succeeds; we don't want to set it to error_mark_node if
we aren't complaining.
Jason
