From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] c++: fixes for derived-to-base reference binding [PR107085]
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 14:00:40 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <77265139-4274-e922-62c4-2b619fa0a4b4@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yz8VsvPVC5w1Vljg@redhat.com>
On 10/6/22 13:51, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 10:58:44AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 10/6/22 10:49, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 08:25:29PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>> On 10/5/22 17:27, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>>>> This PR reports that
>>>>>
>>>>> struct Base {};
>>>>> struct Derived : Base {};
>>>>> static_assert(__reference_constructs_from_temporary(Base const&, Derived));
>>>>>
>>>>> doesn't pass, which it should: it's just like
>>>>>
>>>>> const Base& b(Derived{});
>>>>>
>>>>> where we bind 'b' to the Base subobject of a temporary object of type
>>>>> Derived. The ck_base conversion didn't have ->need_temporary_p set because
>>>>> we didn't need to create a temporary object just for the base, but the whole
>>>>> object is a temporary so we're still binding to a temporary. Fixed by
>>>>> the conv_is_prvalue hunk.
>>>>>
>>>>> That broke a bunch of tests. I've distilled the issue into a simple test
>>>>> in elision4.C. Essentially, we have
>>>>>
>>>>> struct B { /* ... */ };
>>>>> struct D : B { };
>>>>> B b = D();
>>>>>
>>>>> and we set force_elide in build_over_call, but we're unable to actually
>>>>> elide the B::B(B&&) call, and crash on gcc_assert (!force_elide);.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/copy_elision> says that copy
>>>>> elision "can only apply when the object being initialized is known not to be
>>>>> a potentially-overlapping subobject". So I suppose we shouldn't force_elide
>>>>> the B::B(B&&) call. I don't belive the CWG 2327 code was added to handle
>>>>> derived-to-base conversions, at that time conv_binds_ref_to_prvalue wasn't
>>>>> checking ck_base at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that make sense? If so...
>>>>>
>>>>> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>>>>>
>>>>> PR c++/107085
>>>>>
>>>>> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>>>>>
>>>>> * call.cc (conv_is_prvalue): Return true if the base subobject is part
>>>>> of a temporary object.
>>>>
>>>> No, the base subobject of a prvalue is an xvalue.
>>>
>>> Ah, so this is just like T().m where T() is a prvalue but the whole thing
>>> is an xvalue. Duly noted.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>>> I think the problem is that an expression being a prvalue is a subset of
>>>> binding a reference to a temporary, and we shouldn't try to express both of
>>>> those using the same function: you need a separate
>>>> conv_binds_ref_to_temporary.
>>>
>>> Ack, so how about this? Thanks,
>>>
>>> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>>>
>>> -- >8 --
>>> This PR reports that
>>>
>>> struct Base {};
>>> struct Derived : Base {};
>>> static_assert(__reference_constructs_from_temporary(Base const&, Derived));
>>>
>>> doesn't pass, which it should: it's just like
>>>
>>> const Base& b(Derived{});
>>>
>>> where we bind 'b' to the Base subobject of a temporary object of type
>>> Derived. The ck_base conversion didn't have ->need_temporary_p set because
>>> we didn't need to create a temporary object just for the base, but the whole
>>> object is a temporary so we're still binding to a temporary. Since the
>>> Base subobject is an xvalue, a new function is introduced.
>>>
>>> PR c++/107085
>>>
>>> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> * call.cc (conv_binds_ref_to_temporary): New.
>>> (ref_conv_binds_directly): Use it.
>>>
>>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>>
>>> * g++.dg/ext/reference_constructs_from_temporary1.C: Adjust expected
>>> result.
>>> * g++.dg/ext/reference_converts_from_temporary1.C: Likewise.
>>> * g++.dg/cpp0x/elision4.C: New test.
>>> ---
>>> gcc/cp/call.cc | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-
>>> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/elision4.C | 15 ++++++++++++
>>> .../reference_constructs_from_temporary1.C | 2 +-
>>> .../ext/reference_converts_from_temporary1.C | 2 +-
>>> 4 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/elision4.C
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/call.cc b/gcc/cp/call.cc
>>> index bd04a1d309a..715a83f5a69 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/cp/call.cc
>>> +++ b/gcc/cp/call.cc
>>> @@ -9210,6 +9210,27 @@ conv_binds_ref_to_prvalue (conversion *c)
>>> return conv_is_prvalue (next_conversion (c));
>>> }
>>> +/* True iff C is a conversion that binds a reference to a temporary.
>>> + This is a superset of conv_binds_ref_to_prvalue: here we're also
>>> + interested in xvalues. */
>>> +
>>> +static bool
>>> +conv_binds_ref_to_temporary (conversion *c)
>>> +{
>>> + if (conv_binds_ref_to_prvalue (c))
>>> + return true;
>>> + if (c->kind != ck_ref_bind)
>>> + return false;
>>> + c = next_conversion (c);
>>> + /* This is the case for
>>> + struct Base {};
>>> + struct Derived : Base {};
>>> + const Base& b(Derived{});
>>> + where we bind 'b' to the Base subobject of a temporary object of type
>>> + Derived. The subobject is an xvalue; the whole object is a prvalue. */
>>> + return (c->kind == ck_base && conv_is_prvalue (next_conversion (c)));
>>
>> I think you also want to check for the case of c->u.expr being a
>> COMPONENT_REF/ARRAY_REF around a TARGET_EXPR, as you mentioned.
>
> I see. So this would be achieved using e.g.
>
> struct B { };
> struct D : B { };
> struct C {
> D d;
> };
>
> const B& b = C{}.d;
Yes.
> Except I'm not sure how to trigger this via the built-in, which takes two types.
> Am I missing something obvious?
Indeed, it can't be triggered by the built-in. But I see
ref_conv_binds_directly is also called from warn_for_range_copy, which
ought to be able to trigger it.
Incidentally, ref_conv_binds_directly should also probably be reversed
to ref_conv_binds_to_temporary since you can "bind directly" to an
xvalue that refers to a temporary.
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-06 18:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-05 21:27 [PATCH] " Marek Polacek
2022-10-06 0:25 ` Jason Merrill
2022-10-06 14:49 ` [PATCH v2] " Marek Polacek
2022-10-06 14:58 ` Jason Merrill
2022-10-06 17:51 ` Marek Polacek
2022-10-06 18:00 ` Jason Merrill [this message]
2022-10-06 21:43 ` [PATCH v3] " Marek Polacek
2022-10-06 22:03 ` Jason Merrill
2022-10-07 16:10 ` [PATCH v4] " Marek Polacek
2022-10-07 17:01 ` Jason Merrill
2022-10-07 21:26 ` [PATCH v5] " Marek Polacek
2022-10-07 21:50 ` Jason Merrill
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=77265139-4274-e922-62c4-2b619fa0a4b4@redhat.com \
--to=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=polacek@redhat.com \
/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: link
Be 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).