Re: [PATCH v5] c++: Move consteval folding to cp_fold_r

2023-09-15 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches

On 9/13/23 20:02, Marek Polacek wrote:

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 05:57:47PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:

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 (_OPERAND (stmt, 1), walk_subtrees, data))
+   return error_mark_node;
+  if (TREE_OPERAND (stmt, 2)
+ && cp_fold_immediate_r (_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.
  
Arg, of course.  I was fooled into thinking that it would recurse, but

you're right.  Fixed by using cp_walk_tree as I intended.  Tested in
consteval34.C.


But maybe cp_fold_r should do that before the cp_fold, instead of this
function?


I...am not sure how that would be better than what I did.


Callers of cp_fold_immediate don't need this because cp_fold_r isn't 
involved, so it isn't folding anything.


cp_fold_r can walk the arms with cp_fold_r and then clear *walk_subtrees 
to avoid walking the arms again normally.


cp_fold_r uses data->pset to avoid walking the same tree twice; 
cp_fold_immediate_r currently doesn't do anything to avoid that.  If 
cp_fold_immediate_r doesn't itself call cp_walk_tree, cp_fold_immediate 
can use cp_walk_tree_without_duplicates.



+  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.


Hmm, probably not.  Fixed, thanks.

+   if (DECL_IMMEDIATE_FUNCTION_P (fndecl))
+ {
+   stmt = cxx_constant_value (stmt, complain);
+   if (stmt == error_mark_node && (complain & tf_error))
+ return error_mark_node;
+   *stmt_p = stmt;
+ }


This seems backwards; like with the ADDR_EXPR/PTRMEM_CST cases, I think 
we want to return error_mark_node regardless of complain, but only set 
*stmt_p when complaining.


Jason



[PATCH v5] c++: Move consteval folding to cp_fold_r

2023-09-13 Thread Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 05:57:47PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> 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 (_OPERAND (stmt, 1), walk_subtrees, 
> > > > data))
> > > > +   return error_mark_node;
> > > > +  if (TREE_OPERAND (stmt, 2)
> > > > + && cp_fold_immediate_r (_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.
 
Arg, of course.  I was fooled into thinking that it would recurse, but
you're right.  Fixed by using cp_walk_tree as I intended.  Tested in
consteval34.C.

> But maybe cp_fold_r should do that before the cp_fold, instead of this
> function?

I...am not sure how that would be better than what I did.

> > > > +  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.

Hmm, probably not.  Fixed, thanks.

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?

-- >8 --
In the review of P2564:

it turned out that in order to correctly handle an example in the paper,
we should stop doing immediate evaluation in build_over_call and
bot_replace, and instead do it in cp_fold_r.  This patch does that.

Another benefit is that this is a pretty significant simplification, at
least in my opinion.  Also, this fixes the c++/110997 ICE (but the test
doesn't compile yet).

The main drawback seems to be that cp_fold_r doesn't process
uninstantiated templates.  We still have to handle things like
"false ? foo () : 1".  To that end, I've added cp_fold_immediate, called
on dead branches in cxx_eval_conditional_expression.  Since in cxx_*
I can't rely on current_function_decl being available, I've added
another walk: a new overload for in_immediate_context that looks into
constexpr_ctx.

You'll see that I've reintroduced ADDR_EXPR_DENOTES_CALL_P here.  This
is to detect

  *()) ()
  (s.*::foo) ()

which were deemed ill-formed.

gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

* call.cc (in_immediate_context): No longer static.
(build_over_call): Set ADDR_EXPR_DENOTES_CALL_P.  Don't handle
immediate_invocation_p here.
* constexpr.cc (in_immediate_context): New overload.
(cxx_eval_call_expression): Use mce_true for DECL_IMMEDIATE_FUNCTION_P.
(cxx_eval_conditional_expression): Call cp_fold_immediate.
* cp-gimplify.cc (maybe_replace_decl): Make static.
(cp_fold_r): Expand immediate invocations.
(cp_fold_immediate_r): New.
(cp_fold_immediate): New.
* cp-tree.h (ADDR_EXPR_DENOTES_CALL_P): Define.
(cp_fold_immediate): Declare.
* tree.cc (bot_replace): Don't handle immediate invocations here.

libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:

*