public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/112296] __builtin_constant_p doesn't propagate through member functions Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:05:01 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-112296-4-iXhOV7Ksdd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-112296-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112296 --- Comment #9 from Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > Thanks. So yes, > > macro(x++); > > incrementing x twice would have been odd - but that's the usual bug > in this kind of macro definition. Fixing it by throwing away > side-effects (and always going the out_of_line_function (x) path!) > for the __builtin_constant_p argument is an odd choice. In the beginning __builtin_constant_p was resolved immediately, so formulating this as #define macro(x) \ ({ __typeof(x) _x = (x); \ __builtin_constant_p(_x) }) would always return false, defeating the purpose. > The execute.exp testcase suggests the intention but the testcases > verification is somewhat incomplete (it lacks verifying the side-effects > are gone). That's probably my omission. ;-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-31 14:05 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-10-30 14:22 [Bug c++/112296] New: " barry.revzin at gmail dot com 2023-10-30 14:26 ` [Bug c++/112296] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-30 14:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-30 14:49 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-31 8:29 ` [Bug tree-optimization/112296] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-31 9:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-31 9:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-31 13:51 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-31 13:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-31 14:05 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2023-10-31 14:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-31 14:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-31 16:55 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com 2023-11-03 7:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-11-06 7:27 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-11-06 7:38 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-112296-4-iXhOV7Ksdd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).