<html>
<head>
<base href="http://llvm.org/bugs/" />
</head>
<body><span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:filip.roseen@gmail.com" title="Filip Roséen <filip.roseen@gmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Filip Roséen</span></a>
</span> changed
<a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_REOPENED "
title="REOPENED --- - accessing an element of `constexpr static array` inaccurately treated as ODR-usage"
href="http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19643">bug 19643</a>
<br>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
<tr>
<th>What</th>
<th>Removed</th>
<th>Added</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">Status</td>
<td>RESOLVED
</td>
<td>REOPENED
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">Resolution</td>
<td>INVALID
</td>
<td>---
</td>
</tr></table>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_REOPENED "
title="REOPENED --- - accessing an element of `constexpr static array` inaccurately treated as ODR-usage"
href="http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19643#c2">Comment # 2</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_REOPENED "
title="REOPENED --- - accessing an element of `constexpr static array` inaccurately treated as ODR-usage"
href="http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19643">bug 19643</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:filip.roseen@gmail.com" title="Filip Roséen <filip.roseen@gmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Filip Roséen</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=19643#c1">comment #1</a>)
<span class="quote">> Sorry, that's not correct.
>
> We have the expression A::a[0]. Let's walk through 3.2/3:
>
> "A variable x [A::a] whose name appears as a potentially-evaluated
> expression ex [the id-expression A::a, check] is odr-used unless
>
> applying the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion to x yields a constant expression
> [it does]
> that does not invoke any non-trivial functions [it does not] and,
> if x is an object [it is],
> ex is an element of the set of potential results of an expression e,
> where either the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion is applied to e, or e is a
> discarded-value expression."
>
> So: what possible values of 'e' are there? The set of potential results of
> an expression is a set of subexpressions of the expression, so we only need
> to consider expressions of which 'ex' is a subexpression. Those are:
>
> A::a
> A::a[0]
>
> Of these, the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion is *not* applied immediately to
> A::a, so we only consider A::a[0]. Per 3.2/2, the set of potential results
> of A::a[0] is empty, so A::a is odr-used by this expression.
>
>
> Now, you could argue that we first rewrite A::a[0] to *(A::a + 0). But that
> changes nothing: the possible values of e are then
>
> A::a
> A::a + 0
> (A::a + 0)
> *(A::a + 0)
>
> Of these, only the fourth has an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion applied to it,
> and again, 3.2/2 says that the set of potential results of *(A::a + 0) is
> empty.</span >
(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=19643#c1">comment #1</a>)
<span class="quote">> Sorry, that's not correct.
>
> We have the expression A::a[0]. Let's walk through 3.2/3:
>
> "A variable x [A::a] whose name appears as a potentially-evaluated
> expression ex [the id-expression A::a, check] is odr-used unless
>
> applying the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion to x yields a constant expression
> [it does]
> that does not invoke any non-trivial functions [it does not] and,
> if x is an object [it is],
> ex is an element of the set of potential results of an expression e,
> where either the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion is applied to e, or e is a
> discarded-value expression."
>
> So: what possible values of 'e' are there? The set of potential results of
> an expression is a set of subexpressions of the expression, so we only need
> to consider expressions of which 'ex' is a subexpression. Those are:
>
> A::a
> A::a[0]
>
> Of these, the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion is *not* applied immediately to
> A::a, so we only consider A::a[0]. Per 3.2/2, the set of potential results
> of A::a[0] is empty, so A::a is odr-used by this expression.
>
>
> Now, you could argue that we first rewrite A::a[0] to *(A::a + 0). But that
> changes nothing: the possible values of e are then
>
> A::a
> A::a + 0
> (A::a + 0)
> *(A::a + 0)
>
> Of these, only the fourth has an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion applied to it,
> and again, 3.2/2 says that the set of potential results of *(A::a + 0) is
> empty.</span >
You make some very convincing points, and now I'm asking mostly out of
curiosity to why this is ODR-usage.
Having the same snippet as earlier both `gcc` and `clang` accepts `int
b[A::a[0]];`. `A::a[0]` is an expression that must be evaluated during
translation and both evaluates it to `1`, so far so good.
When initializing `int value` with `A::a[0]` we are not in a context which
mandates evaluation during translation, which certainly change things.
[basic.def.odr]p2 states that something is ODR-used unless it is an object that
satisfies the requirements to appear in a constant-expression, and the
lvalue-to-rvalue conversion happens immediately.
When I was reasoning about this, with help of others interested in the subject,
we concluded that because of [expr.const]p2, that states that a glvalue of
literal type (which `A::a` is) that refers to a non-volatile const object (once
again, true) or that refers to a subobject of such an object (`A::a[0]`), this
was not an ODR-use.
I've read your explanation a few times but I still don't understand it. I do
however understand if you got other things to attend to, but I'm very
interested to understanding why this is ODR-usage.
Thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------
[ Note: originally I thought it was, but then I spent time thinking about it
and.. changed my mind ]</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>