================
@@ -9125,9 +9126,25 @@ bool
LValueExprEvaluator::VisitCompoundLiteralExpr(const CompoundLiteralExpr *E) {
assert((!Info.getLangOpts().CPlusPlus || E->isFileScope()) &&
"lvalue compound literal in c++?");
- // Defer visiting the literal until the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion. We can
- // only see this when folding in C, so there's no standard to follow here.
- return Success(E);
+ APValue *Lit;
+ // If CompountLiteral has static storage, its value can be used outside
+ // this expression. So evaluate it once and store it in ASTContext.
+ if (E->hasStaticStorage()) {
+ Lit = E->getOrCreateStaticValue(Info.Ctx);
+ Result.set(E);
+ // Reset any previously evaluated state, otherwise evaluation below might
+ // fail.
+ // FIXME: Should we just re-use the previously evaluated value instead?
+ *Lit = APValue();
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> Do we need the Info.EvalMode == EvalInfo::EM_ConstantFold check from
> MaterializeTemporaryExpr?
Considering the previous comments in the code, I think we need to perform
folding also for CLEs with static duration. There are also many test failures
if we don't fold these in static initializers,
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/test/AST/ByteCode/c.c#L155-L174
is an example (but I am also surprised to see that hold for
`MaterializeTemporaryExpr`s).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137163
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
