[PATCH] Fix: Relax nullptr C++11 rules in ms-mode

[Will Wilson]

*ping* Any chance of getting this patch in before the 3.4 release branch?

Thanks!
Will.


On 7 November 2013 08:06, Will Wilson <will at indefiant.com> wrote:

> Thanks Richard. Updated patch with comment attached ready for committing
> (if it looks acceptable).
>
> Cheers,
> Will.
>
>
> On 7 November 2013 00:25, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> LGTM. But please add a comment to AST/Expr.cpp near the
>> isCXX98IntegralConstantExpr check to say that we follow the C++98 rules in
>> Microsoft mode.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Will Wilson <will at indefiant.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks David! Patch attached...
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 November 2013 14:25, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> There doesn't seem to see a patch attached.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Will Wilson <will at indefiant.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>> Only just had another crack at this MS mode issue. I've updated the
>>>>> patch and added your example to the test case. The new version correctly
>>>>> mirrors MSVC's handling in clang with C++11 mode active.
>>>>>
>>>>> All tests pass and clang-format applied. Let me know what you think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Will.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28 August 2013 03:11, Will Wilson <will at indefiant.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the review (and catching the fail on my part)!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MSVC accepts your templated example without complaint. The patched
>>>>>> clang asserts in EvalAddr() in SemaChecking.cpp after being called by
>>>>>> Sema::CheckReturnStackAddr() with "EvalAddr only works on pointers" using
>>>>>> your example case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have some ideas on how best to support this facet of MSVC
>>>>>> behavior without uglifying the code too much?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Will.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27 August 2013 22:04, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please use isCXX98IntegralConstantExpr, not isIntegerConstantExpr,
>>>>>>> in C++11 + MicrosoftMode. (Take a look at how we behaved prior to r183883.)
>>>>>>> We *really* don't want to use full constexpr evaluation when determining
>>>>>>> whether an expression is a null pointer constant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, this patch tries to evaluate value-dependent potential null
>>>>>>> pointer constants in C++11 + MicrosoftMode. That's not OK, and will
>>>>>>> sometimes assert. How should we behave here? Does MSVC accept this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> template<int N> int *f() { return N; }
>>>>>>> int *p = f<0>();
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Will Wilson <will at indefiant.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This patch uses the more relaxed integer expression codepath in
>>>>>>>> Expr::isNullPointerConstant() when MicrosoftMode is enabled, this reflects
>>>>>>>> MSVC behavior and is required to compile various cases I've come across in
>>>>>>>> MSVC targeted code.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Test case included. Built and tested against latest code. Please
>>>>>>>> review and commit if possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> Will.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> *Indefiant Ltd.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>>>>>>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *Indefiant Ltd.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *Indefiant Ltd.*
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>>>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Indefiant Ltd.*
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Indefiant Ltd.*
>



-- 
*Indefiant Ltd.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20131111/42fe56d4/attachment.html>