c++: Avoid some -Wreturn-type false positives with const{expr,eval} if [PR103991]

Message ID 20220113093921.GT2646553@tucnak
State New
Headers show
Series
  • c++: Avoid some -Wreturn-type false positives with const{expr,eval} if [PR103991]
Related show

Commit Message

liuhongt via Gcc-patches Jan. 13, 2022, 9:39 a.m.
Hi!

The changes done to genericize_if_stmt in order to improve
-Wunreachable-code* warning (which Richi didn't actually commit
for GCC 12) are I think fine for normal ifs, but for constexpr if
and consteval if we have two competing warnings.
The problem is that we replace the non-taken clause (then or else)
with void_node and keep the if (cond) { something } else {}
or if (cond) {} else { something }; in the IL.
This helps -Wunreachable-code*, if something can't fallthru but the
non-taken clause can, we don't warn about code after it because it
is still (in theory) reachable.
But if the non-taken branch can't fallthru, we can get false positive
-Wreturn-type warnings (which are enabled by default) if there is
nothing after the if and the taken branch can't fallthru either.

One possibility to fix this is revert at least temporarily
to the previous behavior for constexpr and consteval if, yes, we
can get false positive -Wunreachable-code* warnings but the warning
isn't present in GCC 12.
The patch below implements that for constexpr if which throws its
clauses very early (either during parsing or during instantiation),
and for consteval if it decides based on block_may_fallthru on the
non-taken (for constant evaluation only) clause - if the non-taken
branch may fallthru, it does what you did in genericize_if_stmt
for consteval if, if it can't fallthru, it uses the older way
of pretending there wasn't an if and just replacing it with the
taken clause.  There are some false positive risks with this though,
block_may_fallthru is optimistic and doesn't handle some statements
at all (like FOR_STMT, WHILE_STMT, DO_STMT - of course handling those
is quite hard).
For constexpr if (but perhaps for GCC 13?) we could try to
block_may_fallthru before we throw it away and remember it in some
flag on the IF_STMT, but am not sure how dangerous would it be to call
it on the discarded stmts.  Or if it is too dangerous e.g. just
remember whether the discarded block of consteval if wasn't present
or was empty, in that case assume fallthru, and otherwise assume
it can't fallthru (-Wunreachable-code possible false positives).

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, if needed,
I can also test the safer variant with just
  if (IF_STMT_CONSTEVAL_P (stmt))
    stmt = else_;
for consteval if.

2022-01-13  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR c++/103991
	* cp-objcp-common.c (cxx_block_may_fallthru) <case IF_STMT>: For
	IF_STMT_CONSTEXPR_P with constant false or true condition only
	check if the taken clause may fall through.
	* cp-gimplify.c (genericize_if_stmt): For consteval if, revert
	to r12-5638^ behavior if then_ block can't fall through.  For
	constexpr if, revert to r12-5638^ behavior.

	* g++.dg/warn/Wreturn-type-13.C: New test.


	Jakub

Comments

liuhongt via Gcc-patches Jan. 13, 2022, 9:09 p.m. | #1
On 1/13/22 04:39, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!

> 

> The changes done to genericize_if_stmt in order to improve

> -Wunreachable-code* warning (which Richi didn't actually commit

> for GCC 12) are I think fine for normal ifs, but for constexpr if

> and consteval if we have two competing warnings.

> The problem is that we replace the non-taken clause (then or else)

> with void_node and keep the if (cond) { something } else {}

> or if (cond) {} else { something }; in the IL.

> This helps -Wunreachable-code*, if something can't fallthru but the

> non-taken clause can, we don't warn about code after it because it

> is still (in theory) reachable.

> But if the non-taken branch can't fallthru, we can get false positive

> -Wreturn-type warnings (which are enabled by default) if there is

> nothing after the if and the taken branch can't fallthru either.


Perhaps we should replace the non-taken clause with 
__builtin_unreachable() instead of void_node?

And/or block_may_fallthru could handle INTEGER_CST op0?

> One possibility to fix this is revert at least temporarily

> to the previous behavior for constexpr and consteval if, yes, we

> can get false positive -Wunreachable-code* warnings but the warning

> isn't present in GCC 12.

> The patch below implements that for constexpr if which throws its

> clauses very early (either during parsing or during instantiation),

> and for consteval if it decides based on block_may_fallthru on the

> non-taken (for constant evaluation only) clause - if the non-taken

> branch may fallthru, it does what you did in genericize_if_stmt

> for consteval if, if it can't fallthru, it uses the older way

> of pretending there wasn't an if and just replacing it with the

> taken clause.  There are some false positive risks with this though,

> block_may_fallthru is optimistic and doesn't handle some statements

> at all (like FOR_STMT, WHILE_STMT, DO_STMT - of course handling those

> is quite hard).

> For constexpr if (but perhaps for GCC 13?) we could try to

> block_may_fallthru before we throw it away and remember it in some

> flag on the IF_STMT, but am not sure how dangerous would it be to call

> it on the discarded stmts.  Or if it is too dangerous e.g. just

> remember whether the discarded block of consteval if wasn't present

> or was empty, in that case assume fallthru, and otherwise assume

> it can't fallthru (-Wunreachable-code possible false positives).

> 

> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, if needed,

> I can also test the safer variant with just

>    if (IF_STMT_CONSTEVAL_P (stmt))

>      stmt = else_;

> for consteval if.

> 

> 2022-01-13  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

> 

> 	PR c++/103991

> 	* cp-objcp-common.c (cxx_block_may_fallthru) <case IF_STMT>: For

> 	IF_STMT_CONSTEXPR_P with constant false or true condition only

> 	check if the taken clause may fall through.

> 	* cp-gimplify.c (genericize_if_stmt): For consteval if, revert

> 	to r12-5638^ behavior if then_ block can't fall through.  For

> 	constexpr if, revert to r12-5638^ behavior.

> 

> 	* g++.dg/warn/Wreturn-type-13.C: New test.

> 

> --- gcc/cp/cp-objcp-common.c.jj	2022-01-11 23:11:22.091294356 +0100

> +++ gcc/cp/cp-objcp-common.c	2022-01-12 17:57:18.232202275 +0100

> @@ -313,6 +313,13 @@ cxx_block_may_fallthru (const_tree stmt)

>         return false;

>   

>       case IF_STMT:

> +      if (IF_STMT_CONSTEXPR_P (stmt))

> +	{

> +	  if (integer_nonzerop (IF_COND (stmt)))

> +	    return block_may_fallthru (THEN_CLAUSE (stmt));

> +	  if (integer_zerop (IF_COND (stmt)))

> +	    return block_may_fallthru (ELSE_CLAUSE (stmt));

> +	}

>         if (block_may_fallthru (THEN_CLAUSE (stmt)))

>   	return true;

>         return block_may_fallthru (ELSE_CLAUSE (stmt));

> --- gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c.jj	2022-01-11 23:11:22.090294370 +0100

> +++ gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c	2022-01-12 21:22:17.585212804 +0100

> @@ -166,8 +166,15 @@ genericize_if_stmt (tree *stmt_p)

>        can contain unfolded immediate function calls, we have to discard

>        the then_ block regardless of whether else_ has side-effects or not.  */

>     if (IF_STMT_CONSTEVAL_P (stmt))

> -    stmt = build3 (COND_EXPR, void_type_node, boolean_false_node,

> -		   void_node, else_);

> +    {

> +      if (block_may_fallthru (then_))

> +	stmt = build3 (COND_EXPR, void_type_node, boolean_false_node,

> +		       void_node, else_);

> +      else

> +	stmt = else_;

> +    }

> +  else if (IF_STMT_CONSTEXPR_P (stmt))

> +    stmt = integer_nonzerop (cond) ? then_ : else_;

>     else

>       stmt = build3 (COND_EXPR, void_type_node, cond, then_, else_);

>     protected_set_expr_location_if_unset (stmt, locus);

> --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wreturn-type-13.C.jj	2022-01-12 21:21:36.567794238 +0100

> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wreturn-type-13.C	2022-01-12 21:20:48.487475787 +0100

> @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@

> +// PR c++/103991

> +// { dg-do compile { target c++17 } }

> +

> +struct S { ~S(); };

> +int

> +foo ()

> +{

> +  S s;

> +  if constexpr (true)

> +    return 0;

> +  else

> +    return 1;

> +}			// { dg-bogus "control reaches end of non-void function" }

> +

> +#if __cpp_if_consteval >= 202106L

> +constexpr int

> +bar ()

> +{

> +  S s;

> +  if consteval

> +    {

> +      return 0;

> +    }

> +  else

> +    {

> +      return 1;

> +    }

> +}			// { dg-bogus "control reaches end of non-void function" }

> +

> +int

> +baz ()

> +{

> +  return bar ();

> +}

> +#endif

> 

> 	Jakub

>
liuhongt via Gcc-patches Jan. 13, 2022, 9:23 p.m. | #2
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 04:09:22PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > The changes done to genericize_if_stmt in order to improve

> > -Wunreachable-code* warning (which Richi didn't actually commit

> > for GCC 12) are I think fine for normal ifs, but for constexpr if

> > and consteval if we have two competing warnings.

> > The problem is that we replace the non-taken clause (then or else)

> > with void_node and keep the if (cond) { something } else {}

> > or if (cond) {} else { something }; in the IL.

> > This helps -Wunreachable-code*, if something can't fallthru but the

> > non-taken clause can, we don't warn about code after it because it

> > is still (in theory) reachable.

> > But if the non-taken branch can't fallthru, we can get false positive

> > -Wreturn-type warnings (which are enabled by default) if there is

> > nothing after the if and the taken branch can't fallthru either.

> 

> Perhaps we should replace the non-taken clause with __builtin_unreachable()

> instead of void_node?


It depends.  If the non-taken clause doesn't exist, is empty or otherwise
can fallthru, then using void_node for it is what we want.
If it exists and can't fallthru, then __builtin_unreachable() is one
possibility, but for all purpose
  if (1)
    something
  else
    __builtin_unreachable();
is equivalent to genericization of it as
  something
and
  if (0)
    __builtin_unreachable();
  else
    something
too.
The main problem is what to do for the consteval if that throws away
the non-taken clause too early, whether we can do block_may_fallthru
already where we throw it away or not.  If we can do that, we could
as right now clear the non-taken clause if it can fallthru and otherwise
either set some flag on the IF_STMT or set the non-taken clause to
__builtin_unreachable or endless empty loop etc., ideally something
as cheap as possible.
 
> And/or block_may_fallthru could handle INTEGER_CST op0?


That is what I'm doing for consteval if in the patch because the info
whether the non-taken clause can fallthru is lost.
We can't do that for normal if, because the non-taken clause could
have labels in it to which something jumps.
But, block_may_fallthru isn't actually what is used for the -Wreturn-type
warning, I think we warn only at cfg creation.

	Jakub
liuhongt via Gcc-patches Jan. 13, 2022, 11:02 p.m. | #3
On 1/13/22 16:23, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 04:09:22PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:

>>> The changes done to genericize_if_stmt in order to improve

>>> -Wunreachable-code* warning (which Richi didn't actually commit

>>> for GCC 12) are I think fine for normal ifs, but for constexpr if

>>> and consteval if we have two competing warnings.

>>> The problem is that we replace the non-taken clause (then or else)

>>> with void_node and keep the if (cond) { something } else {}

>>> or if (cond) {} else { something }; in the IL.

>>> This helps -Wunreachable-code*, if something can't fallthru but the

>>> non-taken clause can, we don't warn about code after it because it

>>> is still (in theory) reachable.

>>> But if the non-taken branch can't fallthru, we can get false positive

>>> -Wreturn-type warnings (which are enabled by default) if there is

>>> nothing after the if and the taken branch can't fallthru either.

>>

>> Perhaps we should replace the non-taken clause with __builtin_unreachable()

>> instead of void_node?

> 

> It depends.  If the non-taken clause doesn't exist, is empty or otherwise

> can fallthru, then using void_node for it is what we want.

> If it exists and can't fallthru, then __builtin_unreachable() is one

> possibility, but for all purpose

>    if (1)

>      something

>    else

>      __builtin_unreachable();

> is equivalent to genericization of it as

>    something

> and

>    if (0)

>      __builtin_unreachable();

>    else

>      something

> too.

> The main problem is what to do for the consteval if that throws away

> the non-taken clause too early, whether we can do block_may_fallthru

> already where we throw it away or not.  If we can do that, we could

> as right now clear the non-taken clause if it can fallthru and otherwise

> either set some flag on the IF_STMT or set the non-taken clause to

> __builtin_unreachable or endless empty loop etc., ideally something

> as cheap as possible.

>   

>> And/or block_may_fallthru could handle INTEGER_CST op0?

> 

> That is what I'm doing for consteval if in the patch because the info

> whether the non-taken clause can fallthru is lost.

> We can't do that for normal if, because the non-taken clause could

> have labels in it to which something jumps.

> But, block_may_fallthru isn't actually what is used for the -Wreturn-type

> warning, I think we warn only at cfg creation.


Fair enough.  The patch is OK.

Jason

Patch

--- gcc/cp/cp-objcp-common.c.jj	2022-01-11 23:11:22.091294356 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/cp-objcp-common.c	2022-01-12 17:57:18.232202275 +0100
@@ -313,6 +313,13 @@  cxx_block_may_fallthru (const_tree stmt)
       return false;
 
     case IF_STMT:
+      if (IF_STMT_CONSTEXPR_P (stmt))
+	{
+	  if (integer_nonzerop (IF_COND (stmt)))
+	    return block_may_fallthru (THEN_CLAUSE (stmt));
+	  if (integer_zerop (IF_COND (stmt)))
+	    return block_may_fallthru (ELSE_CLAUSE (stmt));
+	}
       if (block_may_fallthru (THEN_CLAUSE (stmt)))
 	return true;
       return block_may_fallthru (ELSE_CLAUSE (stmt));
--- gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c.jj	2022-01-11 23:11:22.090294370 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c	2022-01-12 21:22:17.585212804 +0100
@@ -166,8 +166,15 @@  genericize_if_stmt (tree *stmt_p)
      can contain unfolded immediate function calls, we have to discard
      the then_ block regardless of whether else_ has side-effects or not.  */
   if (IF_STMT_CONSTEVAL_P (stmt))
-    stmt = build3 (COND_EXPR, void_type_node, boolean_false_node,
-		   void_node, else_);
+    {
+      if (block_may_fallthru (then_))
+	stmt = build3 (COND_EXPR, void_type_node, boolean_false_node,
+		       void_node, else_);
+      else
+	stmt = else_;
+    }
+  else if (IF_STMT_CONSTEXPR_P (stmt))
+    stmt = integer_nonzerop (cond) ? then_ : else_;
   else
     stmt = build3 (COND_EXPR, void_type_node, cond, then_, else_);
   protected_set_expr_location_if_unset (stmt, locus);
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wreturn-type-13.C.jj	2022-01-12 21:21:36.567794238 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wreturn-type-13.C	2022-01-12 21:20:48.487475787 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ 
+// PR c++/103991
+// { dg-do compile { target c++17 } }
+
+struct S { ~S(); };
+int
+foo ()
+{
+  S s;
+  if constexpr (true)
+    return 0;
+  else
+    return 1;
+}			// { dg-bogus "control reaches end of non-void function" }
+
+#if __cpp_if_consteval >= 202106L
+constexpr int
+bar ()
+{
+  S s;
+  if consteval
+    {
+      return 0;
+    }
+  else
+    {
+      return 1;
+    }
+}			// { dg-bogus "control reaches end of non-void function" }
+
+int
+baz ()
+{
+  return bar ();
+}
+#endif