Currently, sparse emits a warning when a conditional expression with a constant condition is used where an "Integer Constant Expression" is expected and only the false-side operand (which is not evaluated) is not constant. The standard are especially unclear about this situation. However, GCC silently accept those as ICEs when they evaluate to a compile-time known value (in other words, when the conditional and the corresponding true/false sub-expression are themselves constant). The standard are especially unclear about the situation when the unevaluated side is non-constant. So, relax sparse to match GCC's behaviour. Reported-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> --- evaluate.c | 28 +++++++++++++++------------- validation/constexpr-constcond.c | 10 ++++++++++ validation/ioc-typecheck.c | 4 ---- 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) create mode 100644 validation/constexpr-constcond.c diff --git a/evaluate.c b/evaluate.c index 3268333ab..d52fd9f99 100644 --- a/evaluate.c +++ b/evaluate.c @@ -1178,20 +1178,22 @@ static struct symbol *evaluate_conditional_expression(struct expression *expr) expr->flags = (expr->conditional->flags & (*cond)->flags & expr->cond_false->flags & ~CEF_CONST_MASK); /* - * A conditional operator yields a particular constant - * expression type only if all of its three subexpressions are - * of that type [6.6(6), 6.6(8)]. - * As an extension, relax this restriction by allowing any - * constant expression type for the condition expression. - * - * A conditional operator never yields an address constant - * [6.6(9)]. - * However, as an extension, if the condition is any constant - * expression, and the true and false expressions are both - * address constants, mark the result as an address constant. + * In the standard, it is defined that an integer constant expression + * shall only have operands that are themselves constant [6.6(6)]. + * While this definition is very clear for expressions that need all + * their operands to be evaluated, for conditional expressions with a + * constant condition things are much less obvious. + * So, as an extension, do the same as GCC seems to do: + * Consider a conditional expression with a constant condition + * as having the same constantness as the argument corresponding + * to the truth value (including in the case of address constants + * which are defined more stricly [6.6(9)]). */ - if (expr->conditional->flags & (CEF_ACE | CEF_ADDR)) - expr->flags = (*cond)->flags & expr->cond_false->flags & ~CEF_CONST_MASK; + if (expr->conditional->flags & (CEF_ACE | CEF_ADDR)) { + int is_true = expr_truth_value(expr->conditional); + struct expression *arg = is_true ? *cond : expr->cond_false; + expr->flags = arg->flags & ~CEF_CONST_MASK; + } lclass = classify_type(ltype, <ype); rclass = classify_type(rtype, &rtype); diff --git a/validation/constexpr-constcond.c b/validation/constexpr-constcond.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d98da3dc4 --- /dev/null +++ b/validation/constexpr-constcond.c @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +extern int var; + +static int a[] = { + [0 ? var : 1] = 0, + [1 ? 2 : var] = 0, +}; + +/* + * check-name: constexprness in constant conditionals + */ diff --git a/validation/ioc-typecheck.c b/validation/ioc-typecheck.c index 34b37d310..7780773bc 100644 --- a/validation/ioc-typecheck.c +++ b/validation/ioc-typecheck.c @@ -4,8 +4,4 @@ static unsigned iocnrs[] = { }; /* * check-name: integer constant & conditional expression - * check-known-to-fail - * - * check-error-start - * check-error-end */ -- 2.23.0