Re: [PATCH] c++/114409 - ANNOTATE_EXPR and templates
On 4/10/24 13:10, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, 10 Apr 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 06:43:02PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: The following fixes a mismatch in COMPOUND_EXPR handling in tsubst_expr vs tsubst_stmt where the latter allows a stmt in operand zero but the former doesn't. This makes a difference for the case at hand because when the COMPOUND_EXPR is wrapped inside an ANNOTATE_EXPR it gets handled by tsubst_expr and when not, tsubst_stmt successfully handles it and the contained DECL_EXPR in operand zero. The following makes handling of COMPOUND_EXPR in tsubst_expr consistent with that of tsubst_stmt for the operand that doesn't specify the result and thus the reason we choose either or the other for substing. Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK? Thanks, Richard. PR c++/114409 gcc/cp/ * pt.cc (tsubst_expr): Recurse to COMPOUND_EXPR operand zero using tsubst_stmt, when that returns NULL return the subst operand one, mimicing what tsubst_stmt does. gcc/testsuite/ * g++.dg/pr114409.C: New testcase. I've posted https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114409#c16 for this already and Jason agreed to that version, so I just have to test it tonight: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-April/649165.html Ah, I saw the bugzilla patches and wanted this version to be sent because I think the COMPOUND_EXPR inconsistency is odd. So Jason, please still have a look, not necessarily because of the bug which can be fixed in multiple ways but because of that COMPOUND_EXPR handling oddity (there are already some cases in tsubst_expr that explicitly recurse with tsubst_stmt). The difference between tsubst_stmt and tsubst_expr handling of COMPOUND_EXPR seems consistent with the general difference between the two functions, so I think this change isn't needed. The two existing uses of tsubst_stmt in tsubst_expr are statement-expressions (for the substatement) and transactions (strangely, non-statement transactions are handled in tsubst_stmt). Jason
Re: [PATCH] c++/114409 - ANNOTATE_EXPR and templates
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 07:10:52PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Ah, I saw the bugzilla patches and wanted this version to be sent
> because I think the COMPOUND_EXPR inconsistency is odd. So Jason,
> please still have a look, not necessarily because of the bug
> which can be fixed in multiple ways but because of that COMPOUND_EXPR
> handling oddity (there are already some cases in tsubst_expr that
> explicitly recurse with tsubst_stmt).
I think if COMPOUND_EXPR appears in a context where only expressions but not
statements are allowed (say one of the operands of PLUS_EXPR/MINUS_EXPR/...
and hundreds of other places), then the operands of that COMPOUND_EXPR
shouldn't be statements either, so we should be using tsubst_expr rather
than tsubst_stmt on it for the recursion on the first operand and it should
never return NULL. For statements, it can return NULL when the statement
is acutally emitted with add_stmt and so nothing more needs to be kept.
tsubst_stmt ends with
default:
gcc_assert (!STATEMENT_CODE_P (TREE_CODE (t)));
RETURN (tsubst_expr (t, args, complain, in_decl));
so if something isn't handled by tsubst_stmt, it will handle it using
tsubst_expr. But COMPOUND_EXPR is I think intentionally handled by both.
({ ... }) is handled separately in the STMT_EXPR tsubst_expr case, where
it calls tsubst_stmt after preparing stuff.
Jakub
Re: [PATCH] c++/114409 - ANNOTATE_EXPR and templates
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 06:43:02PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > The following fixes a mismatch in COMPOUND_EXPR handling in > > tsubst_expr vs tsubst_stmt where the latter allows a stmt in > > operand zero but the former doesn't. This makes a difference > > for the case at hand because when the COMPOUND_EXPR is wrapped > > inside an ANNOTATE_EXPR it gets handled by tsubst_expr and when > > not, tsubst_stmt successfully handles it and the contained > > DECL_EXPR in operand zero. > > > > The following makes handling of COMPOUND_EXPR in tsubst_expr > > consistent with that of tsubst_stmt for the operand that doesn't > > specify the result and thus the reason we choose either or the > > other for substing. > > > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK? > > > > Thanks, > > Richard. > > > > PR c++/114409 > > gcc/cp/ > > * pt.cc (tsubst_expr): Recurse to COMPOUND_EXPR operand > > zero using tsubst_stmt, when that returns NULL return > > the subst operand one, mimicing what tsubst_stmt does. > > > > gcc/testsuite/ > > * g++.dg/pr114409.C: New testcase. > > I've posted https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114409#c16 > for this already and Jason agreed to that version, so I just have to test it > tonight: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-April/649165.html Ah, I saw the bugzilla patches and wanted this version to be sent because I think the COMPOUND_EXPR inconsistency is odd. So Jason, please still have a look, not necessarily because of the bug which can be fixed in multiple ways but because of that COMPOUND_EXPR handling oddity (there are already some cases in tsubst_expr that explicitly recurse with tsubst_stmt). Richard. -- Richard Biener SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany; GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
Re: [PATCH] c++/114409 - ANNOTATE_EXPR and templates
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 06:43:02PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > The following fixes a mismatch in COMPOUND_EXPR handling in > tsubst_expr vs tsubst_stmt where the latter allows a stmt in > operand zero but the former doesn't. This makes a difference > for the case at hand because when the COMPOUND_EXPR is wrapped > inside an ANNOTATE_EXPR it gets handled by tsubst_expr and when > not, tsubst_stmt successfully handles it and the contained > DECL_EXPR in operand zero. > > The following makes handling of COMPOUND_EXPR in tsubst_expr > consistent with that of tsubst_stmt for the operand that doesn't > specify the result and thus the reason we choose either or the > other for substing. > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK? > > Thanks, > Richard. > > PR c++/114409 > gcc/cp/ > * pt.cc (tsubst_expr): Recurse to COMPOUND_EXPR operand > zero using tsubst_stmt, when that returns NULL return > the subst operand one, mimicing what tsubst_stmt does. > > gcc/testsuite/ > * g++.dg/pr114409.C: New testcase. I've posted https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114409#c16 for this already and Jason agreed to that version, so I just have to test it tonight: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-April/649165.html Jakub
[PATCH] c++/114409 - ANNOTATE_EXPR and templates
The following fixes a mismatch in COMPOUND_EXPR handling in
tsubst_expr vs tsubst_stmt where the latter allows a stmt in
operand zero but the former doesn't. This makes a difference
for the case at hand because when the COMPOUND_EXPR is wrapped
inside an ANNOTATE_EXPR it gets handled by tsubst_expr and when
not, tsubst_stmt successfully handles it and the contained
DECL_EXPR in operand zero.
The following makes handling of COMPOUND_EXPR in tsubst_expr
consistent with that of tsubst_stmt for the operand that doesn't
specify the result and thus the reason we choose either or the
other for substing.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK?
Thanks,
Richard.
PR c++/114409
gcc/cp/
* pt.cc (tsubst_expr): Recurse to COMPOUND_EXPR operand
zero using tsubst_stmt, when that returns NULL return
the subst operand one, mimicing what tsubst_stmt does.
gcc/testsuite/
* g++.dg/pr114409.C: New testcase.
---
gcc/cp/pt.cc| 5 -
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr114409.C | 8
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr114409.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.cc b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
index bf4b89d8413..dae423a751f 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/pt.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.cc
@@ -20635,8 +20635,11 @@ tsubst_expr (tree t, tree args, tsubst_flags_t
complain, tree in_decl)
case COMPOUND_EXPR:
{
- tree op0 = tsubst_expr (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0), args,
+ tree op0 = tsubst_stmt (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0), args,
complain & ~tf_decltype, in_decl);
+ if (op0 == NULL_TREE)
+ /* If the first operand was a statement, we're done with it. */
+ RETURN (RECUR (TREE_OPERAND (t, 1)));
RETURN (build_x_compound_expr (EXPR_LOCATION (t),
op0,
RECUR (TREE_OPERAND (t, 1)),
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr114409.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr114409.C
new file mode 100644
index 000..6343fe8d9f3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr114409.C
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+// { dg-do compile }
+
+template int t() {
+#pragma GCC unroll 4
+while (int ThisEntry = 0) { } // { dg-bogus "ignoring loop annotation" ""
{ xfail *-*-* } }
+return 0;
+}
+int tt = t<1>();
--
2.35.3
