kadircet updated this revision to Diff 457566.
kadircet added a comment.
Add reproducer.
I think the issue is about keeping constexpr functions valid even when their
bodies contain invalid decls under certain instantiations, which I believe is
the right behaviour. As the function body might be invalid for a certain
instantiation at constexpr time, but might be valid for others (or even for the
same instantiation later on in the TU).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D132918/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D132918
Files:
clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp
clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-value-init.cpp
Index: clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-value-init.cpp
===================================================================
--- clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-value-init.cpp
+++ clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-value-init.cpp
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -Wno-uninitialized -std=c++11 -fsyntax-only -verify
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -Wno-uninitialized -std=c++17 -fsyntax-only -verify
struct A {
constexpr A() : a(b + 1), b(a + 1) {} // expected-note 5{{outside its
lifetime}}
@@ -46,3 +46,17 @@
static_assert(e2.a[0].b == 2, "");
static_assert(e2.a[1].a == 1, "");
static_assert(e2.a[1].b == 2, "");
+
+namespace InvalidDeclInsideConstExpr {
+template <int a> struct i; // expected-note {{template is declared here}}
+template <> struct i<0> {};
+
+template <int x> constexpr auto c() {
+ // i<x> is valid, but it might be incomplete. g would be invalid in that
case.
+ i<x> g; // expected-error {{implicit instantiation of undefined template
'InvalidDeclInsideConstExpr::i<1>'}}
+ return 0;
+}
+
+auto y = c<1>(); // expected-note {{in instantiation of function template
specialization 'InvalidDeclInsideConstExpr::c<1>' requested here}}
+auto x = c<0>(); // this is valid.
+}
Index: clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp
===================================================================
--- clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp
+++ clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp
@@ -4844,6 +4844,8 @@
}
static bool EvaluateVarDecl(EvalInfo &Info, const VarDecl *VD) {
+ if (VD->isInvalidDecl())
+ return false;
// We don't need to evaluate the initializer for a static local.
if (!VD->hasLocalStorage())
return true;
Index: clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-value-init.cpp
===================================================================
--- clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-value-init.cpp
+++ clang/test/SemaCXX/constexpr-value-init.cpp
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -Wno-uninitialized -std=c++11 -fsyntax-only -verify
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 %s -Wno-uninitialized -std=c++17 -fsyntax-only -verify
struct A {
constexpr A() : a(b + 1), b(a + 1) {} // expected-note 5{{outside its lifetime}}
@@ -46,3 +46,17 @@
static_assert(e2.a[0].b == 2, "");
static_assert(e2.a[1].a == 1, "");
static_assert(e2.a[1].b == 2, "");
+
+namespace InvalidDeclInsideConstExpr {
+template <int a> struct i; // expected-note {{template is declared here}}
+template <> struct i<0> {};
+
+template <int x> constexpr auto c() {
+ // i<x> is valid, but it might be incomplete. g would be invalid in that case.
+ i<x> g; // expected-error {{implicit instantiation of undefined template 'InvalidDeclInsideConstExpr::i<1>'}}
+ return 0;
+}
+
+auto y = c<1>(); // expected-note {{in instantiation of function template specialization 'InvalidDeclInsideConstExpr::c<1>' requested here}}
+auto x = c<0>(); // this is valid.
+}
Index: clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp
===================================================================
--- clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp
+++ clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp
@@ -4844,6 +4844,8 @@
}
static bool EvaluateVarDecl(EvalInfo &Info, const VarDecl *VD) {
+ if (VD->isInvalidDecl())
+ return false;
// We don't need to evaluate the initializer for a static local.
if (!VD->hasLocalStorage())
return true;
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
