tbaeder added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/AST/Interp/literals.cpp:875
1 ? 0 : 1;
+ sizeof(A);
+ alignof(A);
----------------
tbaeder wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > tbaeder wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > Let's make sure we still reject this:
> > > > ```
> > > > constexpr int oh_my() {
> > > > int x = 0;
> > > > sizeof(int[x++]); // This would usually be evaluated because VLAs are
> > > > terrible
> > > > return x;
> > > > }
> > > > ```
> > > > https://godbolt.org/z/E3jx6co46
> > > Hm, no, doesn't get rejected:
> > > ```
> > > array.cpp:1240:3: warning: expression result unused [-Wunused-value]
> > > 1240 | sizeof(int[x++]); // This would usually be evaluated because
> > > VLAs are terrible
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > array.cpp:1243:15: error: static assertion failed due to requirement
> > > 'oh_my() == 1'
> > > 1243 | static_assert(oh_my() == 1);
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > array.cpp:1243:23: note: expression evaluates to '0 == 1'
> > > 1243 | static_assert(oh_my() == 1);
> > > | ~~~~~~~~^~~~
> > > ```
> > It looks to me like we're not modelling the side effects properly (we would
> > return `1` if we were, so the `static_assert` would have passed), which
> > might explain why we're failing to reject the code.
> Right, I understand, I was just showing the current state. From looking at it
> though, this is not something to be fixed here, the `x++` is passed
> stand-alone to `evaluateAsRValue()`. Not sure yet what the exact problem is,
> I guess this is called before we even registered a local variable for `x`.
> I'll look into it.
Fun, the `ArgumentExpr` is just `x++`:
```
|-UnaryExprOrTypeTraitExpr 0x621000072430 <line:1280:3, col:18> 'unsigned
long' sizeof 'int[x++]'
| `-UnaryOperator 0x621000072378 <col:14, col:15> 'int' postfix '++'
| `-DeclRefExpr 0x621000072350 <col:14> 'int' lvalue Var 0x6210000721a0 'x'
'int'
```
it's simple to implement just rejecting it by just doing
`discard(ArgumentExpr)`, but that doesn't emit any diagnostics.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149834/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149834
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
