tmroeder marked an inline comment as done.
tmroeder added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/AST/ASTImporter.cpp:6160
+ // condition-dependent.
+ bool CondIsTrue = false;
+ if (!E->isConditionDependent())
----------------
a_sidorin wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > tmroeder wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > a_sidorin wrote:
> > > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > > `bool CondIsTrue = E->isConditionDependent() ? false :
> > > > > > E->isConditionTrue();`
> > > > > `bool CondIsTrue = E->isConditionDependent() &&
> > > > > E->isConditionTrue();`?
> > > > I like that even better than my suggestion. :-)
> > > Wait, this doesn't have the same truth table as my original code.
> > >
> > > let `CD = E->isConditionDependent()`
> > > let `CT = E->isConditionTrue()`
> > >
> > > in
> > >
> > > ```
> > > bool CondIsTrue = false;
> > > if (!CD)
> > > CondIsTrue = CT;
> > > ```
> > >
> > > has the table for `CondIsTrue`:
> > >
> > > | `CD` | `CT` | `CondIsTrue` |
> > > | T | T | F |
> > > | T | F | F |
> > > | F | T | T |
> > > | F | F | F |
> > > i.e., if CD is true, then CondIsTrue is always false. Otherwise, it's the
> > > value of CT.
> > >
> > > The suggested line has the truth table
> > >
> > > | `CD` | `CT` | `CondIsTrue` |
> > > | T | T | T |
> > > | T | F | F |
> > > | F | T | F |
> > > | F | F | F |
> > >
> > > That is, the effect of CD is swapped.
> > >
> > > Aaron's suggestion matches my original table. I based my code on
> > > include/clang/AST/Expr.h line 4032, which asserts !isConditionDependent()
> > > in the implementation of isConditionTrue.
> > >
> > > I realized this after I "fixed" my comment to match the implementation
> > > change. Am I missing something? Or is the assertion in Expr.h wrong? I
> > > think this should be
> > >
> > > ```
> > > bool CondIsTrue = !E->isConditionDependent() && E->isConditionTrue();
> > > ```
> > >
> > > I've changed my code to that and reverted the comment change.
> > Good catch -- I think my eyes just missed the change in logic. Perhaps we
> > should add a test case that exercises this?
> Wow, that's a nice catch. Sorry for the misleading.
I started to look for a way to test this, then realized that while it's
possible to test the code itself, it's impossible to make a ChooseExpr with
isConditionDependent() that returns true for real code.
TL;DR: ChooseExpr is a C-only construct, and isConditionDependent is a C++-only
condition; it's always false in C.
Details:
ChooseExpr only represents __builtin_choose_expr which is only valid in C, not
C++. That means ChooseExpr::isConditionDependent() will always be false.
The definition is
```
bool isConditionDependent() const {
return getCond()->isTypeDependent() || getCond() ->isValueDependent();
}
```
However Expr::isTypeDependent() (see Expr.h line 158) is a purely C++ property
to do with templates ([temp.dep.expr]): it is true if the type of the
expression could change from one template instantiation to another.
Similarly Expr::isValueDependent() (see Expr.h line 144) is a purely C++
property to do with templates ([temp.dep.expr]): it is true for value-dependent
types in templates.
Both will always be false in all instantiations of ChooseExpr, due to the
language difference.
So, I think ChooseExpr can be refactored to remove isConditionDependent and
change its constructor to remove TypeDependent and ValueDependent.
If it's OK with you, I'll do that in a followup patch.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58292/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58292
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
