-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
properly short circuit const eval of && and || #29879
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ | ||
// Copyright 2014 The Rust Project Developers. See the COPYRIGHT | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. 2015 |
||
// file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at | ||
// http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT. | ||
// | ||
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or | ||
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license | ||
// <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your | ||
// option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed | ||
// except according to those terms. | ||
|
||
// Testcase provided by oli-obk | ||
|
||
const X: bool = false && ((1u8 - 5u8) == 42); | ||
|
||
fn main() { | ||
println!("{}", X); | ||
} |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem sufficient. The trans constant evaluator generally handles a wider set of conditions that
eval_const_expr_partial
, so it seems to me that this will result in short-circuiting sometimes working and sometimes (for more complex constants) not working, which doesn't seem like the ideal situation.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(I guess this would still be an improvement towards the eventual goal.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes you're right, see also @oli-obk 's comment. I would need to fix this better somehow, but don't yet know a good way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's really hard to extract the proper value from a llvm constant value. There's stackoverflow posts on it for doing it with c++
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5315176/llvm-get-constant-integer-back-from-value
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17255699/outputting-inputs-constant-char-array-from-llvm-pass
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30314417/llvm-retrieving-the-value-of-constant-function-parameters-from-the-c-api