[PATCH] Use __builtin_is_constant_evaluated in std::less etc. (PR tree-optimization/88775)
Jonathan Wakely
jwakely.gcc@gmail.com
Mon Jan 14 09:21:00 GMT 2019
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 09:17, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 9:42 AM Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 09:29:03AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > So why is this not just
> > >
> > > return (__UINTPTR_TYPE__)__x > (__UINTPTR_TYPE__)__y;
> > >
> > > or with the casts elided? Does the C++ standard say pointers are
> > > to be compared unsigned here? Or do all targets GCC support
> > > lay out the address space in a way that this is correct for pointers
> > > into distinct objects?
> >
> > See PR78420 for details on why it is done that way.
>
> I see. So the __builtin_is_constant_evaluated thing makes it
> "correct" (but then eventually exposing the non-total order issue again).
No, because comparing unrelated pointers isn't allowed in constexpr
contexts, so it just gets rejected at compile time.
> And if I read the PR correctly we'd really like to be able to write
>
> if (__builtin_constant_p (<expr>, &result))
> return result;
>
> to make sure whatever undesired-in-the-IL things of <expr>
> do not leak there.
>
> Btw, wouldn't sth like
>
> if (__builtin_is_constant_evaluated())
> {
> union U { __UINTPTR_TYPE__ u; _Tp *p } __ux, __uy;
> __ux.p = __x;
> __uy.p = __y;
> return __ux.u < __uy.u;
> }
>
> be more correct and consistent? Well, or any other way of
> evading that reinterpret-cast "issue"?
>
> Richard.
>
>
> >
> > Jakub
More information about the Libstdc++
mailing list