On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Richard Smith > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Author: rsmith > > Date: Fri Feb 24 16:12:32 2012 > > New Revision: 151399 > > > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=151399&view=rev > > Log: > > When checking whether a reference to a variable is an ICE, look at the > type of > > the declaration, not at the type of the DeclRefExpr, since within a > lambda the > > DeclRefExpr can be more const than the declaration is. > > > > Modified: > > cfe/trunk/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp > > cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/lambda-expressions.cpp > > > > Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp > > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp?rev=151399&r1=151398&r2=151399&view=diff > > > ============================================================================== > > --- cfe/trunk/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp (original) > > +++ cfe/trunk/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp Fri Feb 24 16:12:32 2012 > > @@ -6379,12 +6379,12 @@ > > return CheckEvalInICE(E, Ctx); > > return ICEDiag(2, E->getLocStart()); > > } > > - case Expr::DeclRefExprClass: > > + case Expr::DeclRefExprClass: { > > if (isa<EnumConstantDecl>(cast<DeclRefExpr>(E)->getDecl())) > > return NoDiag(); > > - if (Ctx.getLangOptions().CPlusPlus && > IsConstNonVolatile(E->getType())) { > > - const NamedDecl *D = cast<DeclRefExpr>(E)->getDecl(); > > - > > + const ValueDecl *D = > dyn_cast<ValueDecl>(cast<DeclRefExpr>(E)->getDecl()); > > + if (Ctx.getLangOptions().CPlusPlus && > > + D && IsConstNonVolatile(D->getType())) { > > // Parameter variables are never constants. Without this check, > > // getAnyInitializer() can find a default argument, which leads > > // to chaos. > > @@ -6408,6 +6408,7 @@ > > } > > } > > return ICEDiag(2, E->getLocStart()); > > + } > > case Expr::UnaryOperatorClass: { > > const UnaryOperator *Exp = cast<UnaryOperator>(E); > > switch (Exp->getOpcode()) { > > > > Modified: cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/lambda-expressions.cpp > > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/lambda-expressions.cpp?rev=151399&r1=151398&r2=151399&view=diff > > > ============================================================================== > > --- cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/lambda-expressions.cpp (original) > > +++ cfe/trunk/test/SemaCXX/lambda-expressions.cpp Fri Feb 24 16:12:32 > 2012 > > @@ -101,3 +101,30 @@ > > f(v, [](){}); > > } > > } > > + > > +namespace NullPtr { > > + int &f(int *p); > > + char &f(...); > > + void g() { > > + int n = 0; > > + [=] { > > + char &k = f(n); // not a null pointer constant > > + } (); > > + > > + const int m = 0; > > + [=] { > > + int &k = f(m); // a null pointer constant > > + } (); > > + > > + // FIXME: At least the second of these cases should probably not be > > + // considered to be a null pointer constant. > > + [=] () -> bool { > > + int &k = f(m); // a null pointer constant? > > + return &m == 0; // no, captured! > > + } (); > > + > > + [m] { > > + int &k = f(m); // a null pointer constant? > > + } (); > > I don't follow what you're trying to test here... IIRC, whether a variable is captured should have no effect on whether a particular use > is an odr-use. Ah, sorry, I missed that part of p17. I've taken out the FIXME in r151405, but left the tests in.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
