On 1/30/25 3:43 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 08:03:37AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/27/25 6:19 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk/14?

-- >8 --
We've had a wrong-code problem since r14-4140, due to which we
forget to initialize a variable.

In consteval39.C, we evaluate

      struct QQQ q;
    <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
      QQQ::QQQ (&q, TARGET_EXPR <D.2687, <<< Unknown tree: aggr_init_expr
        5
        __ct_comp
        D.2687
        (struct basic_string_view *) <<< Unknown tree: void_cst >>>
        (const char *) "" >>>>) >>>>>;

into

      struct QQQ q;
    <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
      {.data={._M_len=42, ._M_str=0}} >>>>>;

and then the useless expr_stmt is dropped on the floor, so q isn't
initialized.  As pre-r14-4140, we need to handle constructors specially.

Hmm, why didn't the following code in eval_outermost make this a
rejects-valid bug rather than wrong-code?

               /* If T is calling a constructor to initialize an object,
reframe
it as an AGGR_INIT_EXPR to avoid trying to modify an object
from outside the constant evaluation, which will fail even if
the value is actually constant (is_constant_evaluated3.C).  */

So yes, we go here, create an AGGR_INIT_EXPR, then evaluate it into
{.data={._M_len=42, ._M_str=0}}.  What should give an error?

Oops, I was mixing up build_aggr_init_expr with build_aggr_init.

Your change should share code with this block doing the same thing in
cp_fold_r:

         if (TREE_CODE (r) != CALL_EXPR)
           {
             if (DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (callee))
               {
                 loc = EXPR_LOCATION (x);
                 tree a = CALL_EXPR_ARG (x, 0);
                 bool return_this = targetm.cxx.cdtor_returns_this ();
                 if (return_this)
                   a = cp_save_expr (a);
                 tree s = build_fold_indirect_ref_loc (loc, a);
                 r = cp_build_init_expr (s, r);
                 if (return_this)
                   r = build2_loc (loc, COMPOUND_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (x), r,
                                   fold_convert_loc (loc, TREE_TYPE (x), a));
               }
             x = r;
             break;
           }

Like there, we shouldn't need this for AGGR_INIT_EXPR, only CALL_EXPR.

Okay, but that then means that I can't call cxx_constant_value with an
object, otherwise I don't think I can unify the code above.  Which is
fine, we go down the eval_outermost/AGGR_INIT_EXPR path as mentioned
above.  At least I hope that is okay.

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk/14?

-- >8 --
We've had a wrong-code problem since r14-4140, due to which we
forget to initialize a variable.

In consteval39.C, we evaluate

     struct QQQ q;
   <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
     QQQ::QQQ (&q, TARGET_EXPR <D.2687, <<< Unknown tree: aggr_init_expr
       5
       __ct_comp
       D.2687
       (struct basic_string_view *) <<< Unknown tree: void_cst >>>
       (const char *) "" >>>>) >>>>>;

into

     struct QQQ q;
   <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
     {.data={._M_len=42, ._M_str=0}} >>>>>;

and then the useless expr_stmt is dropped on the floor, so q isn't
initialized.  As pre-r14-4140, we need to handle constructors specially.

With this patch, we generate:

     struct QQQ q;
   <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
     q = {.data={._M_len=42, ._M_str=0}} >>>>>;

initializing q properly.

        PR c++/117501

gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

        * cp-gimplify.cc (cp_build_init_expr_for_ctor): New.
        (cp_fold_immediate_r): Call it.
        (cp_fold): Break out code into cp_build_init_expr_for_ctor.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

        * g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval39.C: New test.
        * g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval40.C: New test.
---
  gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.cc                    | 41 ++++++++++++++++--------
  gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval39.C | 27 ++++++++++++++++
  gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval40.C | 25 +++++++++++++++
  3 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
  create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval39.C
  create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval40.C

diff --git a/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.cc b/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.cc
index 4ec3de13008..bdbdcafec54 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.cc
@@ -1182,6 +1182,27 @@ taking_address_of_imm_fn_error (tree expr, tree decl)
    maybe_explain_promoted_consteval (loc, decl);
  }
+/* Build up an INIT_EXPR to initialize the object of a constructor. CALL

Let's say "...a constructor call that has been folded to a constant value".

+   is the CALL_EXPR for the constructor call; INIT is the initializer.  */

and then "INIT is the value".  OK with that tweak.

Jason

+
+static tree
+cp_build_init_expr_for_ctor (tree call, tree init)
+{
+  tree a = CALL_EXPR_ARG (call, 0);
+  if (is_dummy_object (a))
+    return init;
+  const bool return_this = targetm.cxx.cdtor_returns_this ();
+  const location_t loc = EXPR_LOCATION (call);
+  if (return_this)
+    a = cp_save_expr (a);
+  tree s = build_fold_indirect_ref_loc (loc, a);
+  init = cp_build_init_expr (s, init);
+  if (return_this)
+    init = build2_loc (loc, COMPOUND_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (call), init,
+                   fold_convert_loc (loc, TREE_TYPE (call), a));
+  return init;
+}
+
  /* A subroutine of cp_fold_r to handle immediate functions.  */
static tree
@@ -1297,7 +1318,12 @@ cp_fold_immediate_r (tree *stmt_p, int *walk_subtrees, 
void *data_)
        }
        /* We've evaluated the consteval function call.  */
        if (call_p)
-       *stmt_p = e;
+       {
+         if (code == CALL_EXPR && DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (decl))
+           *stmt_p = cp_build_init_expr_for_ctor (stmt, e);
+         else
+           *stmt_p = e;
+       }
      }
    /* We've encountered a function call that may turn out to be consteval
       later.  Store its caller so that we can ensure that the call is
@@ -3422,18 +3448,7 @@ cp_fold (tree x, fold_flags_t flags)
          if (TREE_CODE (r) != CALL_EXPR)
          {
            if (DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (callee))
-             {
-               loc = EXPR_LOCATION (x);
-               tree a = CALL_EXPR_ARG (x, 0);
-               bool return_this = targetm.cxx.cdtor_returns_this ();
-               if (return_this)
-                 a = cp_save_expr (a);
-               tree s = build_fold_indirect_ref_loc (loc, a);
-               r = cp_build_init_expr (s, r);
-               if (return_this)
-                 r = build2_loc (loc, COMPOUND_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (x), r,
-                                 fold_convert_loc (loc, TREE_TYPE (x), a));
-             }
+             r = cp_build_init_expr_for_ctor (x, r);
            x = r;
            break;
          }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval39.C 
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval39.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..523e8260eab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval39.C
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+// PR c++/117501
+// { dg-do run { target c++20 } }
+
+constexpr unsigned
+length ()
+{
+  bool __trans_tmp_1 = __builtin_is_constant_evaluated();
+  if (__trans_tmp_1)
+    return 42;
+  return 1;
+}
+struct basic_string_view {
+  constexpr basic_string_view(const char *) : _M_len{length()}, _M_str{} {}
+  long _M_len;
+  char _M_str;
+};
+struct QQQ {
+  consteval QQQ(basic_string_view d) : data(d) {}
+  basic_string_view data;
+};
+int
+main ()
+{
+  QQQ q("");
+  if (q.data._M_len != 42)
+    __builtin_abort ();
+}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval40.C 
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval40.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..4d3ba20092b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/consteval40.C
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+// PR c++/117501
+// { dg-do run { target c++20 } }
+
+constexpr int
+twiddle (int i)
+{
+ if (__builtin_is_constant_evaluated ())
+    return 3;
+  return i;
+}
+struct S {
+  constexpr S(int i) : i{twiddle (i)} {}
+  int i;
+};
+struct Q {
+  consteval Q(S s_) : s{s_, s_} {}
+  S s[2];
+};
+int
+main ()
+{
+  Q q(twiddle (42));
+  if (q.s[0].i != 3 || q.s[1].i != 3)
+    __builtin_abort ();
+}

base-commit: 1e819a997dd5507e52cafc540656fc15160322fd

Reply via email to