Changeset 8f557161 for src/ResolvExpr

Timestamp:

Jun 13, 2023, 4:33:16 PM (18 months ago)

Author:

Michael Brooks <mlbrooks@…>

Branches:

master

Children:

5668740, fec8bd1

Parents:

576aadb

Message:

Clarify and fix accuracy in eval public API, on reporting "unable to evaluate."

While the eval internals always used the flag pair valid and cfavalid almost correctly, the public interface exposed the outcome as a single flag, and the various interpretations of this flag were a mess.

Old cfacc treated sizeof(whatever) in some contexts as "known to be zero," which is wrong.
The generally correct answer, which new cfacc now uses is, "unknown now, but GCC will see it as a fine constant."
New tests/eval.cfa captures this fact: is runnable and would fail on old cfacc; it passes with new cfacc.

Location:

src/ResolvExpr

Files:

• CurrentObject.cc (modified) (2 diffs)
• Resolver.cc (modified) (1 diff)

src/ResolvExpr/CurrentObject.cc

@@ -689 +689 @@
 
                         auto arg = eval( expr );
-                        index = arg.first;
+                        assertf( arg.hasKnownValue, "Non-evaluable expression made it to IndexIterator" );
+                        index = arg.knownValue;
 
                         // if ( auto constExpr = dynamic_cast< const ConstantExpr * >( expr ) ) {
@@ -728 +729 @@
                 size_t getSize( const Expr * expr ) {
                         auto res = eval( expr );
-                        if ( !res.second ) {
+                        if ( !res.hasKnownValue ) {
                                 SemanticError( location, toString( "Array designator must be a constant expression: ", expr ) );
                         }
-                        return res.first;
+                        return res.knownValue;
                 }
 

src/ResolvExpr/Resolver.cc

@@ -1341 +1341 @@
                                         auto mutAttr = mutate(attr);
                                         mutAttr->params.front() = resolved;
-                                        if (! result.second) {
+                                        if (! result.hasKnownValue) {
                                                 SemanticWarning(loc, Warning::GccAttributes,
                                                         toCString( name, " priorities must be integers from 0 to 65535 inclusive: ", arg ) );
                                         }
                                         else {
-                                                auto priority = result.first;
+                                                auto priority = result.knownValue;
                                                 if (priority < 101) {
                                                         SemanticWarning(loc, Warning::GccAttributes,