[Bug c++/70796] [DR 1030] Initialization order with braced-init-lists still broken

["cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70796

--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
<jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:98cbc9b6ae37fd8b1b1bea1d15f0e427e8f36daa

commit r11-9335-g98cbc9b6ae37fd8b1b1bea1d15f0e427e8f36daa
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri Nov 19 10:05:01 2021 +0100

    c++: Fix up -fstrong-eval-order handling of call arguments [PR70796]

    For -fstrong-eval-order (default for C++17 and later) we make sure to
    gimplify arguments in the right order, but as the following testcase
    shows that is not enough.
    The problem is that some lvalues can satisfy the is_gimple_val / fb_rvalue
    predicate used by gimplify_arg for is_gimple_reg_type typed expressions,
    or is_gimple_lvalue / fb_either used for other types.
    E.g. in foo we have:
      C::C (&p,  ++i,  ++i)
    before gimplification where i is an automatic int variable and without this
    patch gimplify that as:
      i = i + 1;
      i = i + 1;
      C::C (&p, i, i);
    which means that the ctor is called with the original i value incremented
    by 2 in both arguments, while because the call is CALL_EXPR_ORDERED_ARGS
    the first argument should be different.  Similarly in qux we have:
      B::B (&p, TARGET_EXPR <D.2274, *(const struct A &) A::operator++ (&i)>,
            TARGET_EXPR <D.2275, *(const struct A &) A::operator++ (&i)>)
    and gimplify it as:
          _1 = A::operator++ (&i);
          _2 = A::operator++ (&i);
          B::B (&p, MEM[(const struct A &)_1], MEM[(const struct A &)_2]);
    but because A::operator++ returns the passed in argument, again we have
    the same value in both cases due to gimplify_arg doing:
          /* Also strip a TARGET_EXPR that would force an extra copy.  */
          if (TREE_CODE (*arg_p) == TARGET_EXPR)
            {
              tree init = TARGET_EXPR_INITIAL (*arg_p);
              if (init
                  && !VOID_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (init)))
                *arg_p = init;
            }
    which is perfectly fine optimization for calls with unordered arguments,
    but breaks the ordered ones.
    Lastly, in corge, we have before gimplification:
      D::foo (NON_LVALUE_EXPR <p>, 3,  ++p)
    and gimplify it as
      p = p + 4;
      D::foo (p, 3, p);
    which is again wrong, because the this argument isn't before the
    side-effects but after it.
    The following patch adds cp_gimplify_arg wrapper, which if ordered
    and is_gimple_reg_type forces non-SSA_NAME is_gimple_variable
    result into a temporary, and if ordered, not is_gimple_reg_type
    and argument is TARGET_EXPR bypasses the gimplify_arg optimization.
    So, in foo with this patch we gimplify it as:
      i = i + 1;
      i.0_1 = i;
      i = i + 1;
      C::C (&p, i.0_1, i);
    in qux as:
          _1 = A::operator++ (&i);
          D.2312 = MEM[(const struct A &)_1];
          _2 = A::operator++ (&i);
          B::B (&p, D.2312, MEM[(const struct A &)_2]);
    where D.2312 is a temporary and in corge as:
      p.9_1 = p;
      p = p + 4;
      D::foo (p.9_1, 3, p);
    The is_gimple_reg_type forcing into a temporary should be really cheap
    (I think even at -O0 it should be optimized if there is no modification in
    between), the aggregate copies might be more expensive but I think e.g. SRA
    or FRE should be able to deal with those if there are no intervening
    changes.  But still, the patch tries to avoid those when it is cheaply
    provable that nothing bad happens (if no argument following it in the
    strong evaluation order doesn't have TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS, then even VAR_DECLs
    etc. shouldn't be modified after it).  There is also an optimization to
    avoid doing that for this or for arguments with reference types as nothing
    can modify the parameter values during evaluation of other argument's
    side-effects.

    I've tried if e.g.
      int i = 1;
      return i << ++i;
    doesn't suffer from this problem as well, but it doesn't, the FE uses
      SAVE_EXPR <i>, SAVE_EXPR <i> << ++i;
    in that case which gimplifies the way we want (temporary in the first
    operand).

    2021-11-19  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

            PR c++/70796
            * cp-gimplify.c (cp_gimplify_arg): New function.
            (cp_gimplify_expr): Use cp_gimplify_arg instead of gimplify_arg,
            pass true as last argument to it if there are any following
            arguments in strong evaluation order with side-effects.

            * g++.dg/cpp1z/eval-order11.C: New test.

    (cherry picked from commit a84177aff7ca86f501d6aa5ef407fac5e71f56fb)