C++ Logo

SG12

Advanced search

Subject: Re: [SG12] Missing non-void return on some paths
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-05-08 15:13:23


On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 2:50 PM Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 8 May 2021, 20:32 Nevin Liber, <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 2:18 PM Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think adding std::unreachable(); after the assertion would work for
>>> that purpose.
>>>
>>
>> If I'm reading it correctly, the paper says that unreachable is not
>> allowed in a constant expression (because calling it is UB).
>>
>
> It means that unreachable() cannot be called during constant evaluation.
> It is allowed in a constexpr function as long as it's not reached. That's
> the same as falling off the end of a function, isn't it? I don't think it
> changes anything.
>
> During constant evaluation, if you reach the end of a non-void function
> it's an error. Reaching a call to unreachable would be the same.
>
>
> That is a breaking change for calling assert in a constexpr context
>> [assertions.assert]. And even if we fix the one in the standard, how can
>> users write their own?
>>
>
>
> No, because I'm not suggesting adding it to assert. I said add it after
> the assertion, i.e. in the function containing the assertion.
>

For assert(false), sure they can, although now that would require users to
change code where they have already documented the code is unreachable.

What about assert(b) when NDEBUG is not defined? JF said that would become
an unconditional call to std::unreachable, but calling std::unreachable
invokes UB. From the paper: "The author feels that the best way is to make
the behavior of std::unreachable() be undefined."

-- 
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden] <nevin_at_[hidden]>>
+1-847-691-1404



SG12 list run by sg12-owner@lists.isocpp.org