Add an `EvaluationResult` class. This contains the result either as a
`Pointer` or as a `APValue`.
This way, we can inspect the result of the evaluation and diagnose
problems with it (e.g. uninitialized fields in global initializers or
pointers pointing to things they shouldn't point to).
D152495 makes clang warn on unused variables that are declared in conditions like `if (int var = init) {}`
This patch is an NFC fix to suppress the new warning in llvm,clang,lld builds to pass CI in the above patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D158016
We pass these as pointers, so we need to be careful not to emit pointers
to pointers when we emit visit DeclRefExprs pointing to parameters.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D153695
If the return type of a function is void, ReturnType is not set, but we
used to emit a RVOPtr instruction, which doesn't make sense for a
function returning void.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D153649
We will use this opcode for conditionally executed statements that are
invalid in a constant expression.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D150364
Otherwise, we run into an assertion when trying to use the current
variable scope while creating temporaries for constructor initializers.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D147534
We often visit the same variable multiple times, e.g. once when checking
its initializer and later when compiling the function. Unify both of
those in visitVarDecl() and do the returning of the value in
visitDecl().
This time, use a VariableScope instead of a DeclScope for local
variables. This way, we don't emit Destroy ops for the local variables
immediately after creating them.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D136815
We often visit the same variable multiple times, e.g. once when checking
its initializer and later when compiling the function. Unify both of
those in visitVarDecl() and do the returning of the value in
visitDecl().
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D136815
Use an InlineDescriptor per local variable to track whether locals
have been initialized or not. This way we can support uninitialized
local variables in constexpr functions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D135750
The calling convention is:
[RVO pointer]
[instance pointer]
[... args ...]
We handle the instance pointer ourselves, BUT for the RVO pointer, we
just assumed in visitReturnStmt() that it is on top of the stack. Which
isn't true if there are other args present (and a this pointer, maybe).
Fix this by recording the RVO pointer explicitly when creating an
InterpFrame, just like we do with the instance/This pointer.
There is already a "RVOAndParams()" test in test/AST/Inter/records.cpp,
that was supposed to test this, however, it didn't trigger any
problematic behavior because the parameter and the return value have the
same type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D137392
This was confusing. InitElem peeks a pointer, while InitElemPop will
pop the pointer. However, for fields, InitField would pop the pointer
and no InitFieldPop exists. At least make InitField and InitElem behave
the same.
When assigning to them, we can't classify the expression type, because
that doesn't contain the right information.
And when reading from them, we need to do the extra deref, just like we
do when reading from a DeclRefExpr.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D136012
Implement ArrayInitLoopExprs, which are used in copy constructors to
copy arrays. Also fix problems encountered while doing that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D134361
Implement passing the this pointer to member functions and constructors.
The this pointer is passed via the stack. This changes the functions to
explicitly track whether they have a RVO pointer and a this pointer.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D134699
This is illegal in a constexpr context. We can already figure that out,
but we'd still run into an assertion later on when trying to visit the
missing initializer or run the invalid function.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132832
