[clang] introduce constexpr step limit opt-out by Tsche · Pull Request #160440 · llvm/llvm-project (original) (raw)

Conversation

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

[ Show hidden characters]({{ revealButtonHref }})

To address @AaronBallman's feedback from #143785 this patch implements an explicit opt-out for -fconstexpr-steps by setting -fconstexpr-steps=0.

This does not change any defaults, but gives users an easy way to opt out of this limit altogether (and instead let the compiler reach the system's resource limits).

Currently users set constexpr-steps to some arbitrary high number (and I mean arbitrary - see the tables in the previous PR). This isn't actually opting out of the limit though - you're still bound by the upper bound of the counter's type. If you have enough resources to evaluate more than 18446744073709551615 steps that's bad news.

In any case, =0 conveys the intent clearer. This is in line with how we handle other flags, ie -ftemplate-backtrace-limit or -ferror-limit.

Please advise if a similar opt-out would be desirable for -fconstexpr-depth (and possibly -ftemplate-depth?).

Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project!

This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified.

If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page.

If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by name in a comment by using @ followed by their GitHub username.

If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers.

If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide.

You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums.

llvmbot added clang

Clang issues not falling into any other category

clang:frontend

Language frontend issues, e.g. anything involving "Sema"

clang:bytecode

Issues for the clang bytecode constexpr interpreter

labels

Sep 24, 2025

@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang

Author: None (Tsche)

Changes

To address @AaronBallman's feedback from #143785 this patch implements an explicit opt-out for -fconstexpr-steps by setting -fconstexpr-steps=0.

This does not change any defaults, but gives users an easy way to opt out of this limit altogether (and instead let the compiler reach the system's resource limits).

In any case, =0 conveys the intent clearer. This is in line with how we handle other flags, ie -ftemplate-backtrace-limit or -ferror-limit.

Please advise if a similar opt-out would be desirable for -fconstexpr-depth (and possibly -ftemplate-depth?).

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/160440.diff

3 Files Affected:

(modified) clang/docs/UsersManual.rst (+1-1)
(modified) clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/Interp.h (+3)
(modified) clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp (+4-1)

diff --git a/clang/docs/UsersManual.rst b/clang/docs/UsersManual.rst index a8bbf146431ea..1a062475728dd 100644 --- a/clang/docs/UsersManual.rst +++ b/clang/docs/UsersManual.rst @@ -4028,7 +4028,7 @@ Controlling implementation limits Sets the limit for the number of full-expressions evaluated in a single constant expression evaluation. This also controls the maximum size of array and dynamic array allocation that can be constant evaluated.

The default is 1048576.

The default is 1048576, and the limit can be disabled with -fconstexpr-steps=0..

.. option:: -ftemplate-depth=N

diff --git a/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/Interp.h b/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/Interp.h index b3b4b998439cc..deba2d294abe9 100644 --- a/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/Interp.h +++ b/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/Interp.h @@ -3686,6 +3686,9 @@ inline bool CheckDestruction(InterpState &S, CodePtr OpPC) {

inline bool CheckArraySize(InterpState &S, CodePtr OpPC, uint64_t NumElems) { uint64_t Limit = S.getLangOpts().ConstexprStepLimit;

if (Limit == 0)
return true;
if (NumElems > Limit) { S.FFDiag(S.Current->getSource(OpPC), diag::note_constexpr_new_exceeds_limits)

diff --git a/clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp b/clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp index d10e2afeb2341..0fe3fce5b64a8 100644 --- a/clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp +++ b/clang/lib/AST/ExprConstant.cpp @@ -990,7 +990,7 @@ namespace { // of arrays to avoid exhausting the system resources, as initialization // of each element is likely to take some number of steps anyway. uint64_t Limit = Ctx.getLangOpts().ConstexprStepLimit;

```
 if (ElemCount > Limit) {
```

 if (Limit != 0 && ElemCount > Limit) {
   if (Diag)
     FFDiag(Loc, diag::note_constexpr_new_exceeds_limits)
         << ElemCount << Limit;

@@ -1016,6 +1016,9 @@ namespace { }

 bool nextStep(const Stmt *S) {

 if (Ctx.getLangOpts().ConstexprStepLimit == 0)

```
   return true;
```

  if (!StepsLeft) {
    FFDiag(S->getBeginLoc(), diag::note_constexpr_step_limit_exceeded);
    return false;

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the idea makes sense
Can you update the docs in Options.td, UserManual.rst?
We should say somewhere that =0 will consume all available resources and somewhat discourage it.

Thanks. I've added the (0 = no limit) note to the driver's help text. The changes to UserManual.rst had already been made.

We should say somewhere that =0 will consume all available resources and somewhat discourage it.

Is this not implied? What else is it supposed to do if I disable self-imposed limits?

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is still missing a release note

This is still missing a release note

Damn, forgot about it again. I've added it now :)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think keepEvaluatingAfterFailure() also needs to be updated.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

@Tsche Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the LLVM Project!

Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then tested by our build bots. If there is a problem with a build, you may receive a report in an email or a comment on this PR.

Please check whether problems have been caused by your change specifically, as the builds can include changes from many authors. It is not uncommon for your change to be included in a build that fails due to someone else's changes, or infrastructure issues.

How to do this, and the rest of the post-merge process, is covered in detail here.

If your change does cause a problem, it may be reverted, or you can revert it yourself. This is a normal part of LLVM development. You can fix your changes and open a new PR to merge them again.

If you don't get any reports, no action is required from you. Your changes are working as expected, well done!

akadutta pushed a commit to akadutta/llvm-project that referenced this pull request

Oct 14, 2025

To address @AaronBallman's feedback from llvm#143785 this patch implements an explicit opt-out for -fconstexpr-steps by setting -fconstexpr-steps=0.

This does not change any defaults, but gives users an easy way to opt out of this limit altogether (and instead let the compiler reach the system's resource limits).

In any case, =0 conveys the intent clearer. This is in line with how we handle other flags, ie -ftemplate-backtrace-limit or -ferror-limit.

Labels

clang:bytecode

Issues for the clang bytecode constexpr interpreter

clang:frontend

Language frontend issues, e.g. anything involving "Sema"

clang

Clang issues not falling into any other category