On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:41:01PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 03:27:02PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> > OK.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > > This patch fixes a bogus maybe-uninitialized warning reported in the PR.
>> > > The issue is that we're not able to fold away useless
>> > > CLEANUP_POINT_EXPRs,
>> > > as e.g. in
>> > > if (<<cleanup_point 0>>)
>> > > // bogus warning
>> > > Here, the cleanup_point was built as <<cleanup_point 0 && (i = 4) != 0>>,
>> > > which cp_fold_r reduces to <<cleanup_point 0>>, but leaves it as that and
>> > > passes it to the gimplifier.
>> > >
>> > > Jakub suggested handling this in cp_fold. fold_build_cleanup_point_expr
>> > > says
>> > > that "if the expression does not have side effects then we don't have to
>> > > wrap
>> > > it with a cleanup point expression", so I think the following should be
>> > > safe.
>> > >
>> > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
>> > >
>> > > 2017-03-21 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
>> > >
>> > > PR c++/80119
>> > > * cp-gimplify.c (cp_fold): Strip CLEANUP_POINT_EXPR if the
>> > > expression
>> > > doesn't have side effects.
>> > >
>> > > * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-9.C: New test.
>> > >
>> > > diff --git gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c
>> > > index ebb5da9..b4319ca 100644
>> > > --- gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c
>> > > +++ gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c
>> > > @@ -2056,6 +2056,14 @@ cp_fold (tree x)
>> > > code = TREE_CODE (x);
>> > > switch (code)
>> > > {
>> > > + case CLEANUP_POINT_EXPR:
>> > > + /* Strip CLEANUP_POINT_EXPR if the expression doesn't have side
>> > > + effects. */
>> > > + r = cp_fold (TREE_OPERAND (x, 0));
>>
>> Can CLEANUP_POINT_EXPR be an lvalue? If not, maybe cp_fold_rvalue instead?
>
> I ran the testing with some lvalue_p checks added and it seems a
> CLEANUP_POINT_EXPR
> is never an lvalue, so I guess we can call cp_fold_rvalue. Jason, is this
> still
> ok?
Yes.
