Before I start, sincere apologies for the email mishaps! I was setting up
an email client and somehow the emails I sent did not initially seem to
go through, but they actually did. You might have received several
duplicate emails as a result.
On Wed Feb 16, 2022 at 4:06 AM +08, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Ah, I see. I found it a bit odd that gcc-commit-mklog auto-generated a
> > subject with "c:",
> > but I just went with it as I didn't know any better. Unfortunately, I
> > can't change it now on the current thread.
>
> That came from this line in the testcase:
>
> > +/* PR c/25689 */
>
> The PR should be c++/25689. Also, sometimes the bugzilla component
> isn't the same as the area of the compiler you're changing; the latter
> is what you want in the patch subject, so that the right people know to
> review it.
Oh, I see. Thanks for the explanation. I've fixed the line.
> > Ah, I didn't notice that. Sorry about that! I'm kinda new to the whole
> > mailing list setup so there are some kinks I have to iron out.
>
> FWIW it's often easier to send the patch as an attachment.
Alright, I'll send patches as attachments instead. I originally sent
them as text as it is easier to comment on them.
> > +/* Test non-empty class */
> > +void f2(B b1, B b2)
> > +{
> > + if (b1 = 0); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
> > + if (b1 = 0.); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
> > + if (b1 = b2); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
> > + if (b1.operator= (0));
> > +
> > + /* Ideally, we wouldn't warn for non-empty classes using trivial
> > + operator= (below), but we currently do as it is a MODIFY_EXPR. */
> > + // if (b1.operator= (b2));
>
> You can avoid it by calling suppress_warning on that MODIFY_EXPR in
> build_over_call.
Unfortunately, that also affects the warning for if (b1 = b2) just 5
lines above. Both expressions seem to generate the same tree structure.
v6: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590419.html
1. Check for error_mark_node in is_assignment_op_expr_pr.
2. Change "c:" to "c++:".
v5: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590393.html
Changes since v5:
1. Revert changes in v4.
2. Replace gcc_assert with a return NULL_TREE in extract_call_expr.
v4: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590379.html
Changes since v4:
1. Refactor the non-assert-related code out of extract_call_expr and
call that function instead to check for call expressions.
v3: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590310.html
Changes since v3:
1. Also handle COMPOUND_EXPRs and TARGET_EXPRs.
v2: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590236.html
Changes since v2:
1. Add more test cases in Wparentheses-31.C.
2. Refactor added logic to a function (is_assignment_overload_ref_p).
3. Use REFERENCE_REF_P instead of INDIRECT_REF_P.
v1: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/590158.html
Changes since v1:
1. Use CALL_EXPR_OPERATOR_SYNTAX to avoid warnings for explicit
operator=() calls.
2. Use INDIRECT_REF_P to filter implicit operator=() calls.
3. Use cp_get_callee_fndecl_nofold.
4. Add spaces before (.
From b89c3ebcfb4d7b3777bb70c1c0272cfd3bf29247 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Zhao Wei Liew <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 17:44:29 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] c++: Add diagnostic when operator= is used as truth cond
[PR25689]
When compiling the following code with g++ -Wparentheses, GCC does not
warn on the if statement. For example, there is no warning for this code:
struct A {
A& operator=(int);
operator bool();
};
void f(A a) {
if (a = 0); // no warning
}
This is because a = 0 is a call to operator=, which GCC does not handle.
This patch fixes this issue by handling calls to operator= when deciding
to warn.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
PR c++/25689
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* call.cc (extract_call_expr): Return a NULL_TREE on failure
instead of asserting.
* semantics.cc (is_assignment_op_expr_p): Add function to check
if an expression is a call to an op= operator expression.
(maybe_convert_cond): Handle the case of a op= operator expression
for the -Wparentheses diagnostic.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/warn/Wparentheses-31.C: New test.
Signed-off-by: Zhao Wei Liew <[email protected]>
---
gcc/cp/call.cc | 7 ++-
gcc/cp/semantics.cc | 22 +++++++-
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wparentheses-31.C | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wparentheses-31.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/call.cc b/gcc/cp/call.cc
index d6eed5ed835..3b2c6d8c499 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/call.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/call.cc
@@ -7090,9 +7090,10 @@ extract_call_expr (tree call)
default:;
}
- gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (call) == CALL_EXPR
- || TREE_CODE (call) == AGGR_INIT_EXPR
- || call == error_mark_node);
+ if (TREE_CODE (call) != CALL_EXPR
+ && TREE_CODE (call) != AGGR_INIT_EXPR
+ && call != error_mark_node)
+ return NULL_TREE;
return call;
}
diff --git a/gcc/cp/semantics.cc b/gcc/cp/semantics.cc
index 0cb17a6a8ab..9cd88715417 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/semantics.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/semantics.cc
@@ -815,6 +815,26 @@ finish_goto_stmt (tree destination)
return add_stmt (build_stmt (input_location, GOTO_EXPR, destination));
}
+/* Returns true if CALL is a (possibly wrapped) CALL_EXPR or AGGR_INIT_EXPR
+ to operator= () that is written as an operator expression. */
+static bool
+is_assignment_op_expr_p (tree call)
+{
+ if (call == NULL_TREE)
+ return false;
+
+ call = extract_call_expr (call);
+ if (call == NULL_TREE
+ || call == error_mark_node
+ || !CALL_EXPR_OPERATOR_SYNTAX (call))
+ return false;
+
+ tree fndecl = cp_get_callee_fndecl_nofold (call);
+ return fndecl != NULL_TREE
+ && DECL_ASSIGNMENT_OPERATOR_P (fndecl)
+ && DECL_OVERLOADED_OPERATOR_IS (fndecl, NOP_EXPR);
+}
+
/* COND is the condition-expression for an if, while, etc.,
statement. Convert it to a boolean value, if appropriate.
In addition, verify sequence points if -Wsequence-point is enabled. */
@@ -836,7 +856,7 @@ maybe_convert_cond (tree cond)
/* Do the conversion. */
cond = convert_from_reference (cond);
- if (TREE_CODE (cond) == MODIFY_EXPR
+ if ((TREE_CODE (cond) == MODIFY_EXPR || is_assignment_op_expr_p (cond))
&& warn_parentheses
&& !warning_suppressed_p (cond, OPT_Wparentheses)
&& warning_at (cp_expr_loc_or_input_loc (cond),
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wparentheses-31.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wparentheses-31.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..1a2cec9fd54
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wparentheses-31.C
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+/* Test that -Wparentheses warns for struct/class assignments,
+ except for explicit calls to operator= (). */
+/* PR c++/25689 */
+/* { dg-options "-Wparentheses" } */
+
+struct A
+{
+ A& operator= (int);
+ A operator= (double);
+ operator bool ();
+};
+
+struct B
+{
+ bool x;
+ B& operator= (int);
+ B operator= (double);
+ operator bool ();
+};
+
+struct C
+{
+ C& operator= (int);
+ virtual C operator= (double);
+ operator bool ();
+};
+
+/* Test empty class */
+void f1 (A a1, A a2)
+{
+ if (a1 = 0); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
+ if (a1 = 0.); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
+ if (a1.operator= (0));
+ if (a1.operator= (a2));
+
+ /* Ideally, we'd warn for empty classes using trivial operator= (below),
+ but we don't do so yet as it is a non-trivial COMPOUND_EXPR. */
+ // if (a1 = a2);
+}
+
+/* Test non-empty class */
+void f2(B b1, B b2)
+{
+ if (b1 = 0); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
+ if (b1 = 0.); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
+ if (b1 = b2); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
+ if (b1.operator= (0));
+
+ /* Ideally, we wouldn't warn for non-empty classes using trivial
+ operator= (below), but we currently do as it is a MODIFY_EXPR. */
+ // if (b1.operator= (b2));
+}
+
+/* Test class with vtable */
+void f3(C c1, C c2)
+{
+ if (c1 = 0); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
+ if (c1 = 0.); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
+ if (c1 = c2); /* { dg-warning "suggest parentheses" } */
+ if (c1.operator= (0));
+ if (c1.operator= (c2));
+}
--
2.32.0 (Apple Git-132)
