struct A {
consteval A() {};
};
constexpr bool g() {
auto a = new A;
delete a;
return true;
}
int main() {
static_assert(g());
}
https://godbolt.org/z/jsq35WxKs
GCC and MSVC reject the program, ICC and Clang accept it:
///MSVC:
<source>(6): error C7595: 'A::A': call to immediate function is not a constant expression
Compiler returned: 2
//GCC:
<source>: In function 'constexpr bool g()':
<source>:6:18: error: the value of '<anonymous>' is not usable in a constant expression
6 | auto a = new A;
| ^
<source>:6:18: note: '<anonymous>' was not declared 'constexpr'
<source>:7:12: error: type '<type error>' argument given to 'delete', expected pointer
7 | delete a;
| ^
Compiler returned: 1
Although, replacing new A by new A() results in GCC accepting the program as well (but not for new A{} either).
Making at least one of the following changes results in all four compilers accepting the program:
Replace consteval with constexpr
Replace constexpr with consteval
Replace
auto a = new A;
delete a;
with
auto alloc = std::allocator<A>{};
auto a = alloc.allocate(1);
std::construct_at(a);
std::destroy_at(a);
alloc.deallocate(a, 1);
with A a;, with auto&& a = A{}; or with A{};
Only exceptions:
Clang trunk with libstdc++ seems to fail compilation with the std::allocator version seemingly due to an unrelated bug. With Clang 13 or libc++ it is accepted as well.
In file included from <source>:1:
In file included from [...]/memory:78:
[...]/shared_ptr_atomic.h:459:14: error: missing 'typename' prior to dependent type name '_Atomic_count::pointer'
static _Atomic_count::pointer
MSVC rejects the std::allocator version as long as there is consteval on the constructor:
error C7595: 'A::A': call to immediate function is not a constant expression
<source>(10): note: see reference to function template instantiation '_Ty *std::construct_at<_Ty,,void>(_Ty *const ) noexcept(false)' being compiled
with
[
_Ty=A
]
Replacing static_assert(g()); with g() or removing the call completely does not seem to have any impact on these results.
Which compilers are correct and if the original is ill-formed, why is only that particular combination of qualifiers and construction method disallowed?
Motivated by the comments under this answer.
The relevant wording is [expr.const]/13:
An expression or conversion is an immediate invocation if it is a potentially-evaluated explicit or implicit invocation of an immediate function and is not in an immediate function context. An immediate invocation shall be a constant expression.
Note the words 'or conversion' and 'implicit invocation' - this seems to imply that the rule is intended to apply on a per-function-call basis.1 The evaluation of a single atomic expression can consist of multiple such calls, as in the case of e.g. the new-expression which may call an allocation function, a constructor, and a deallocation function. If the selected constructor is consteval, the part of the evaluation of the new-expression that initializes the object (i.e. the constructor call), and only that part, is an immediate invocation. Under this interpretation, using new with a consteval constructor should not be ill-formed regardless of context - even outside of a constant expression - as long as the initialization of the object is itself constant, of course.
There is an issue with this reading, however: the last sentence clearly says that an immediate invocation must be an expression. A 'sub-atomic call' as described above isn't one, it does not have a value category, and could not possibly satisfy the definition of a constant expression ([expr.const]/11):
A constant expression is either a glvalue core constant expression that refers to an entity that is a permitted result of a constant expression (as defined below), or a prvalue core constant expression whose value satisfies the following constraints [...]
A literal interpretation of this wording would preclude any use of a consteval constructor outside of an immediate function context, since a call to it can never appear as a standalone expression. This is clearly not the intended meaning - among other things, it would render parts of the standard library unusable.
A more optimistic (but also less faithful to the words as written) version of this reading is that the atomic expression containing the call (formally: the expression which the call is an immediate subexpression of 2) must be a constant expression. This still doesn't allow your new A construct because it is not a constant expression by itself, and also leaves some uncertainty in cases like initialization of function parameters or variables in general.
I'm inclined to believe that the first reading is the intended one, and that new A should be fine, but clearly there's implementation divergence.
As for the contradictory 'shall be a constant expression' requirement, this isn't the only place in the standard where it appears like this. Earlier in the same section, [expr.const]/2.2:
A variable or temporary object o is constant-initialized if [...]
- the full-expression of its initialization is a constant expression when interpreted as a constant-expression [...]
Clearly, the following is supposed to be valid:
constinit A a;
But there's no constant expression in sight.
So, to answer your question:
Whether the call to g is being evaluated as part of a manifestly constant-evaluated expression does not matter3 regardless of which interpretation of [expr.const]/13 you go with. new A is either well-formed even during normal evaluation or ill-formed anywhere outside of an immediate function context.
By the looks of it, Clang and ICC implement the former set of rules while GCC and MSVC adhere to the latter. With the exception of GCC accepting new A() as an outlier (which is clearly a bug), neither are wrong, the wording is just defective.
[1] CWG2410 fixes the wording to properly include things like constructor calls (which are neither expressions nor conversions).
[2] Yes, a non-expression can be a subexpression.
[3] Such a requirement would be impossible to enforce.