From: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>,
"libstdc++" <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>,
GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use __builtin_is_constant_evaluated in std::less etc. (PR tree-optimization/88775)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 08:40:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFk2RUYEJ+FXa6oOCEg=WYtnFzkC5qy+UG-3e+a3SmuxVMpeyg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc0ZLu=X9YAKQhTAZ8Da5UX0wHo8-HeNPp6DU7xvBdWymQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 10:29, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> > _GLIBCXX14_CONSTEXPR bool
> > operator()(_Tp* __x, _Tp* __y) const _GLIBCXX_NOTHROW
> > {
> > +#if __cplusplus >= 201402L
> > +#ifdef _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED
> > + if (__builtin_is_constant_evaluated())
> > +#else
> > if (__builtin_constant_p (__x > __y))
> > +#endif
> > return __x > __y;
> > +#endif
> > return (__UINTPTR_TYPE__)__x > (__UINTPTR_TYPE__)__y;
>
> I wonder what the idea behind this is. It smells like trying to avoid
> undefined behavior (relational compare of pointers to different objects?)
> but then executing that nevertheless when "constant"?
>
> I think this just doesn't work since the compiler, when evaluating
> __x > __y [for constant folding] is exploiting the fact that doing
> non-equality compares on pointers into different objects invoke
> undefined behavior.
When that happens, the function is ill-formed when constant-evaluated,
which is fine.
When the comparison is not UB, it should constant-evaluate without problems.
> So why is this not just
> return (__UINTPTR_TYPE__)__x > (__UINTPTR_TYPE__)__y;
> or with the casts elided?
Those casts are reinterpret_casts, so the function could never be
constant-evaluated.
The casts need to be there to avoid UB for the run-time cases.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-14 8:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-10 9:02 Jakub Jelinek
2019-01-10 10:52 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-01-14 8:29 ` Richard Biener
2019-01-14 8:40 ` Ville Voutilainen [this message]
2019-01-14 8:42 ` Jakub Jelinek
2019-01-14 9:17 ` Richard Biener
2019-01-14 9:21 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-01-14 10:43 ` Richard Biener
2019-01-14 9:22 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-01-14 9:21 ` Jonathan Wakely
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='CAFk2RUYEJ+FXa6oOCEg=WYtnFzkC5qy+UG-3e+a3SmuxVMpeyg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=ville.voutilainen@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=marc.glisse@inria.fr \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.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).