* [PATCH] c++: constant non-copy-init is manifestly constant [PR108243]
@ 2023-02-20 19:46 Patrick Palka
2023-02-21 20:18 ` Patrick Palka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Palka @ 2023-02-20 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches; +Cc: jason, Patrick Palka
According to [basic.start.static]/2 and [expr.const]/2, a variable
with static storage duration initialized with a constant initializer
has constant initialization, and such an initializer is manifestly
constant-evaluated.
We're already getting this right with copy initialization because in
that case check_initializer would consistently call store_init_value
(which for TREE_STATIC variables calls fold_non_dependent_init with
m_c_e=true).
But for direct (or default) initialization, we don't always call
store_init_value. We instead however always call maybe_constant_init
from expand_default_init[1], albeit with m_c_e=false which means we
don't always get the "manifestly constant-evaluated" part right for
copy-init.
This patch fixes this by simply passing m_c_e=true to this call to
maybe_constant_init for static storage duration variables, mirroring
what store_init_value basically does.
[1]: this maybe_constant_init call isn't reached in the copy-init
case because there init is a CONSTRUCTOR rather than a TREE_LIST so
expand_default_init exits early returning an INIT_EXPR. This INIT_EXPR
is ultimately what causes us to consistently hit the store_init_value
code path from check_initializer in the copy-init case.
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
trunk? Would it be suitable to backport this to the 12 branch since
it should only affect C++20 code?
PR c++/108243
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* init.cc (expand_default_init): Pass m_c_e=true instead of
=false to maybe_constant_init when initializing a variable
with static storage duration.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/init.cc | 5 +-
.../g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C | 140 ++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 144 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.cc b/gcc/cp/init.cc
index 52e96fbe590..705a5b3bdb6 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/init.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc
@@ -2203,7 +2203,10 @@ expand_default_init (tree binfo, tree true_exp, tree exp, tree init, int flags,
tree fn = get_callee_fndecl (rval);
if (fn && DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P (fn))
{
- tree e = maybe_constant_init (rval, exp);
+ bool manifestly_const_eval = false;
+ if (VAR_P (exp) && TREE_STATIC (exp))
+ manifestly_const_eval = true;
+ tree e = maybe_constant_init (rval, exp, manifestly_const_eval);
if (TREE_CONSTANT (e))
rval = cp_build_init_expr (exp, e);
}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..365bca3fd9a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C
@@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
+// PR c++/108243
+// Verify a variable with static storage duration initialized with a
+// constant initializer has constant initialization, and the initializer
+// is manifestly constant-evaluated.
+// { dg-do run { target c++11 } }
+// { dg-additional-options "-fdump-tree-original" }
+
+#include <initializer_list>
+
+struct A {
+ constexpr A(int n) : n(n), m(__builtin_is_constant_evaluated()) { }
+ constexpr A() : A(42) { }
+ void verify_mce() const {
+ if (m != 1) __builtin_abort();
+ }
+ int n;
+ int m;
+};
+
+A a1 = {42};
+A a2{42};
+A a3(42);
+A a4;
+A a5{};
+
+void f() {
+ static A a1 = {42};
+ static A a2{42};
+ static A a3(42);
+ static A a4;
+ static A a5{};
+ for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5})
+ a.verify_mce();
+}
+
+template<int... N>
+void g() {
+ static A a1 = {42};
+ static A a2{42};
+ static A a3(42);
+ static A a4;
+ static A a5{};
+ static A a6 = {N...};
+ static A a7{N...};
+ static A a8(N...);
+ for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8})
+ a.verify_mce();
+}
+
+struct B {
+ static A a1;
+ static A a2;
+ static A a3;
+ static A a4;
+ static A a5;
+ static void verify_mce() {
+ for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5})
+ a.verify_mce();
+ }
+};
+
+A B::a1 = {42};
+A B::a2{42};
+A B::a3(42);
+A B::a4;
+A B::a5{};
+
+template<int... N>
+struct BT {
+ static A a1;
+ static A a2;
+ static A a3;
+ static A a4;
+ static A a5;
+ static A a6;
+ static A a7;
+ static A a8;
+ static void verify_mce() {
+ for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5})
+ a.verify_mce();
+ }
+};
+
+template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a1 = {42};
+template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a2{42};
+template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a3(42);
+template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a4;
+template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a5{};
+template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a6 = {N...};
+template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a7{N...};
+template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a8(N...);
+
+#if __cpp_inline_variables
+struct BI {
+ static inline A a1 = {42};
+ static inline A a2{42};
+ static inline A a3;
+ static inline A a4{};
+ static void verify_mce() {
+ for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4})
+ a.verify_mce();
+ }
+};
+
+template<int... N>
+struct BIT {
+ static inline A a1 = {42};
+ static inline A a2{42};
+ static inline A a3;
+ static inline A a4{};
+ static inline A a5 = {N...};
+ static inline A a6{N...};
+ static void verify_mce() {
+ for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6})
+ a.verify_mce();
+ }
+};
+#endif
+
+int main() {
+ for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5})
+ a.verify_mce();
+
+ f();
+ g<42>();
+ g<>();
+
+ B::verify_mce();
+ BT<42>::verify_mce();
+ BT<>::verify_mce();
+
+#if __cpp_inline_variables
+ BI::verify_mce();
+ BIT<42>::verify_mce();
+ BIT<>::verify_mce();
+#endif
+}
+
+// { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "static initializers for" "original" } }
+// { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "cxa_guard_acquire" "original" } }
--
2.39.2.501.gd9d677b2d8
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: constant non-copy-init is manifestly constant [PR108243]
2023-02-20 19:46 [PATCH] c++: constant non-copy-init is manifestly constant [PR108243] Patrick Palka
@ 2023-02-21 20:18 ` Patrick Palka
2023-03-02 16:35 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Palka @ 2023-02-21 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick Palka; +Cc: gcc-patches, jason
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Patrick Palka wrote:
> According to [basic.start.static]/2 and [expr.const]/2, a variable
> with static storage duration initialized with a constant initializer
> has constant initialization, and such an initializer is manifestly
> constant-evaluated.
>
> We're already getting this right with copy initialization because in
> that case check_initializer would consistently call store_init_value
> (which for TREE_STATIC variables calls fold_non_dependent_init with
> m_c_e=true).
>
> But for direct (or default) initialization, we don't always call
> store_init_value. We instead however always call maybe_constant_init
> from expand_default_init[1], albeit with m_c_e=false which means we
> don't always get the "manifestly constant-evaluated" part right for
> copy-init.
>
> This patch fixes this by simply passing m_c_e=true to this call to
> maybe_constant_init for static storage duration variables, mirroring
> what store_init_value basically does.
>
> [1]: this maybe_constant_init call isn't reached in the copy-init
> case because there init is a CONSTRUCTOR rather than a TREE_LIST so
> expand_default_init exits early returning an INIT_EXPR. This INIT_EXPR
> is ultimately what causes us to consistently hit the store_init_value
> code path from check_initializer in the copy-init case.
>
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
> trunk? Would it be suitable to backport this to the 12 branch since
> it should only affect C++20 code?
>
> PR c++/108243
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * init.cc (expand_default_init): Pass m_c_e=true instead of
> =false to maybe_constant_init when initializing a variable
> with static storage duration.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C: New test.
> ---
> gcc/cp/init.cc | 5 +-
> .../g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C | 140 ++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 144 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.cc b/gcc/cp/init.cc
> index 52e96fbe590..705a5b3bdb6 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/init.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc
> @@ -2203,7 +2203,10 @@ expand_default_init (tree binfo, tree true_exp, tree exp, tree init, int flags,
> tree fn = get_callee_fndecl (rval);
> if (fn && DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P (fn))
> {
> - tree e = maybe_constant_init (rval, exp);
> + bool manifestly_const_eval = false;
> + if (VAR_P (exp) && TREE_STATIC (exp))
> + manifestly_const_eval = true;
> + tree e = maybe_constant_init (rval, exp, manifestly_const_eval);
> if (TREE_CONSTANT (e))
> rval = cp_build_init_expr (exp, e);
> }
Hmm, alternatively we could just override manifestly_const_eval to true
from maybe_constant_init for static storage duration variables, like so.
I guess this approach much be preferable since it potentially benefits
all maybe_constant_init callers?
-- >8 --
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constexpr.cc (maybe_constant_init_1): Override
manifestly_const_eval to true if is_static.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
index aa2c14355f8..8ae83a6eadf 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
@@ -8760,7 +8760,8 @@ maybe_constant_init_1 (tree t, tree decl, bool allow_non_constant,
bool is_static = (decl && DECL_P (decl)
&& (TREE_STATIC (decl) || DECL_EXTERNAL (decl)));
t = cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr (t, allow_non_constant, !is_static,
- mce_value (manifestly_const_eval),
+ (is_static ? mce_true
+ : mce_value (manifestly_const_eval)),
false, decl);
}
if (TREE_CODE (t) == TARGET_EXPR)
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..365bca3fd9a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
> +// PR c++/108243
> +// Verify a variable with static storage duration initialized with a
> +// constant initializer has constant initialization, and the initializer
> +// is manifestly constant-evaluated.
> +// { dg-do run { target c++11 } }
> +// { dg-additional-options "-fdump-tree-original" }
> +
> +#include <initializer_list>
> +
> +struct A {
> + constexpr A(int n) : n(n), m(__builtin_is_constant_evaluated()) { }
> + constexpr A() : A(42) { }
> + void verify_mce() const {
> + if (m != 1) __builtin_abort();
> + }
> + int n;
> + int m;
> +};
> +
> +A a1 = {42};
> +A a2{42};
> +A a3(42);
> +A a4;
> +A a5{};
> +
> +void f() {
> + static A a1 = {42};
> + static A a2{42};
> + static A a3(42);
> + static A a4;
> + static A a5{};
> + for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5})
> + a.verify_mce();
> +}
> +
> +template<int... N>
> +void g() {
> + static A a1 = {42};
> + static A a2{42};
> + static A a3(42);
> + static A a4;
> + static A a5{};
> + static A a6 = {N...};
> + static A a7{N...};
> + static A a8(N...);
> + for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8})
> + a.verify_mce();
> +}
> +
> +struct B {
> + static A a1;
> + static A a2;
> + static A a3;
> + static A a4;
> + static A a5;
> + static void verify_mce() {
> + for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5})
> + a.verify_mce();
> + }
> +};
> +
> +A B::a1 = {42};
> +A B::a2{42};
> +A B::a3(42);
> +A B::a4;
> +A B::a5{};
> +
> +template<int... N>
> +struct BT {
> + static A a1;
> + static A a2;
> + static A a3;
> + static A a4;
> + static A a5;
> + static A a6;
> + static A a7;
> + static A a8;
> + static void verify_mce() {
> + for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5})
> + a.verify_mce();
> + }
> +};
> +
> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a1 = {42};
> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a2{42};
> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a3(42);
> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a4;
> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a5{};
> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a6 = {N...};
> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a7{N...};
> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a8(N...);
> +
> +#if __cpp_inline_variables
> +struct BI {
> + static inline A a1 = {42};
> + static inline A a2{42};
> + static inline A a3;
> + static inline A a4{};
> + static void verify_mce() {
> + for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4})
> + a.verify_mce();
> + }
> +};
> +
> +template<int... N>
> +struct BIT {
> + static inline A a1 = {42};
> + static inline A a2{42};
> + static inline A a3;
> + static inline A a4{};
> + static inline A a5 = {N...};
> + static inline A a6{N...};
> + static void verify_mce() {
> + for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6})
> + a.verify_mce();
> + }
> +};
> +#endif
> +
> +int main() {
> + for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5})
> + a.verify_mce();
> +
> + f();
> + g<42>();
> + g<>();
> +
> + B::verify_mce();
> + BT<42>::verify_mce();
> + BT<>::verify_mce();
> +
> +#if __cpp_inline_variables
> + BI::verify_mce();
> + BIT<42>::verify_mce();
> + BIT<>::verify_mce();
> +#endif
> +}
> +
> +// { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "static initializers for" "original" } }
> +// { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "cxa_guard_acquire" "original" } }
> --
> 2.39.2.501.gd9d677b2d8
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: constant non-copy-init is manifestly constant [PR108243]
2023-02-21 20:18 ` Patrick Palka
@ 2023-03-02 16:35 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2023-03-02 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick Palka; +Cc: gcc-patches
On 2/21/23 15:18, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Patrick Palka wrote:
>
>> According to [basic.start.static]/2 and [expr.const]/2, a variable
>> with static storage duration initialized with a constant initializer
>> has constant initialization, and such an initializer is manifestly
>> constant-evaluated.
>>
>> We're already getting this right with copy initialization because in
>> that case check_initializer would consistently call store_init_value
>> (which for TREE_STATIC variables calls fold_non_dependent_init with
>> m_c_e=true).
>>
>> But for direct (or default) initialization, we don't always call
>> store_init_value. We instead however always call maybe_constant_init
>> from expand_default_init[1], albeit with m_c_e=false which means we
>> don't always get the "manifestly constant-evaluated" part right for
>> copy-init.
>>
>> This patch fixes this by simply passing m_c_e=true to this call to
>> maybe_constant_init for static storage duration variables, mirroring
>> what store_init_value basically does.
>>
>> [1]: this maybe_constant_init call isn't reached in the copy-init
>> case because there init is a CONSTRUCTOR rather than a TREE_LIST so
>> expand_default_init exits early returning an INIT_EXPR. This INIT_EXPR
>> is ultimately what causes us to consistently hit the store_init_value
>> code path from check_initializer in the copy-init case.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
>> trunk? Would it be suitable to backport this to the 12 branch since
>> it should only affect C++20 code?
>>
>> PR c++/108243
>>
>> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * init.cc (expand_default_init): Pass m_c_e=true instead of
>> =false to maybe_constant_init when initializing a variable
>> with static storage duration.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C: New test.
>> ---
>> gcc/cp/init.cc | 5 +-
>> .../g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C | 140 ++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 144 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.cc b/gcc/cp/init.cc
>> index 52e96fbe590..705a5b3bdb6 100644
>> --- a/gcc/cp/init.cc
>> +++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc
>> @@ -2203,7 +2203,10 @@ expand_default_init (tree binfo, tree true_exp, tree exp, tree init, int flags,
>> tree fn = get_callee_fndecl (rval);
>> if (fn && DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P (fn))
>> {
>> - tree e = maybe_constant_init (rval, exp);
>> + bool manifestly_const_eval = false;
>> + if (VAR_P (exp) && TREE_STATIC (exp))
>> + manifestly_const_eval = true;
>> + tree e = maybe_constant_init (rval, exp, manifestly_const_eval);
>> if (TREE_CONSTANT (e))
>> rval = cp_build_init_expr (exp, e);
>> }
>
> Hmm, alternatively we could just override manifestly_const_eval to true
> from maybe_constant_init for static storage duration variables, like so.
> I guess this approach much be preferable since it potentially benefits
> all maybe_constant_init callers?
That does look better.
OK (perhaps with a local variable to hold the mce_value).
> -- >8 --
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * constexpr.cc (maybe_constant_init_1): Override
> manifestly_const_eval to true if is_static.
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> index aa2c14355f8..8ae83a6eadf 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/constexpr.cc
> @@ -8760,7 +8760,8 @@ maybe_constant_init_1 (tree t, tree decl, bool allow_non_constant,
> bool is_static = (decl && DECL_P (decl)
> && (TREE_STATIC (decl) || DECL_EXTERNAL (decl)));
> t = cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr (t, allow_non_constant, !is_static,
> - mce_value (manifestly_const_eval),
> + (is_static ? mce_true
> + : mce_value (manifestly_const_eval)),
> false, decl);
> }
> if (TREE_CODE (t) == TARGET_EXPR)
>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 00000000000..365bca3fd9a
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp2a/is-constant-evaluated14.C
>> @@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
>> +// PR c++/108243
>> +// Verify a variable with static storage duration initialized with a
>> +// constant initializer has constant initialization, and the initializer
>> +// is manifestly constant-evaluated.
>> +// { dg-do run { target c++11 } }
>> +// { dg-additional-options "-fdump-tree-original" }
>> +
>> +#include <initializer_list>
>> +
>> +struct A {
>> + constexpr A(int n) : n(n), m(__builtin_is_constant_evaluated()) { }
>> + constexpr A() : A(42) { }
>> + void verify_mce() const {
>> + if (m != 1) __builtin_abort();
>> + }
>> + int n;
>> + int m;
>> +};
>> +
>> +A a1 = {42};
>> +A a2{42};
>> +A a3(42);
>> +A a4;
>> +A a5{};
>> +
>> +void f() {
>> + static A a1 = {42};
>> + static A a2{42};
>> + static A a3(42);
>> + static A a4;
>> + static A a5{};
>> + for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5})
>> + a.verify_mce();
>> +}
>> +
>> +template<int... N>
>> +void g() {
>> + static A a1 = {42};
>> + static A a2{42};
>> + static A a3(42);
>> + static A a4;
>> + static A a5{};
>> + static A a6 = {N...};
>> + static A a7{N...};
>> + static A a8(N...);
>> + for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8})
>> + a.verify_mce();
>> +}
>> +
>> +struct B {
>> + static A a1;
>> + static A a2;
>> + static A a3;
>> + static A a4;
>> + static A a5;
>> + static void verify_mce() {
>> + for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5})
>> + a.verify_mce();
>> + }
>> +};
>> +
>> +A B::a1 = {42};
>> +A B::a2{42};
>> +A B::a3(42);
>> +A B::a4;
>> +A B::a5{};
>> +
>> +template<int... N>
>> +struct BT {
>> + static A a1;
>> + static A a2;
>> + static A a3;
>> + static A a4;
>> + static A a5;
>> + static A a6;
>> + static A a7;
>> + static A a8;
>> + static void verify_mce() {
>> + for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5})
>> + a.verify_mce();
>> + }
>> +};
>> +
>> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a1 = {42};
>> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a2{42};
>> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a3(42);
>> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a4;
>> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a5{};
>> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a6 = {N...};
>> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a7{N...};
>> +template<int... N> A BT<N...>::a8(N...);
>> +
>> +#if __cpp_inline_variables
>> +struct BI {
>> + static inline A a1 = {42};
>> + static inline A a2{42};
>> + static inline A a3;
>> + static inline A a4{};
>> + static void verify_mce() {
>> + for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4})
>> + a.verify_mce();
>> + }
>> +};
>> +
>> +template<int... N>
>> +struct BIT {
>> + static inline A a1 = {42};
>> + static inline A a2{42};
>> + static inline A a3;
>> + static inline A a4{};
>> + static inline A a5 = {N...};
>> + static inline A a6{N...};
>> + static void verify_mce() {
>> + for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6})
>> + a.verify_mce();
>> + }
>> +};
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +int main() {
>> + for (auto& a : {a1, a2, a3, a4, a5})
>> + a.verify_mce();
>> +
>> + f();
>> + g<42>();
>> + g<>();
>> +
>> + B::verify_mce();
>> + BT<42>::verify_mce();
>> + BT<>::verify_mce();
>> +
>> +#if __cpp_inline_variables
>> + BI::verify_mce();
>> + BIT<42>::verify_mce();
>> + BIT<>::verify_mce();
>> +#endif
>> +}
>> +
>> +// { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "static initializers for" "original" } }
>> +// { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-not "cxa_guard_acquire" "original" } }
>> --
>> 2.39.2.501.gd9d677b2d8
>>
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-03-02 16:35 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-02-20 19:46 [PATCH] c++: constant non-copy-init is manifestly constant [PR108243] Patrick Palka
2023-02-21 20:18 ` Patrick Palka
2023-03-02 16:35 ` Jason Merrill
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).