Looks like we again are going to have problems with libcxx tests that
are overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.
This reverts commit 6542cb55a3eb115b1c3592514590a19987ffc498.
This patch is basically the rewording of the static assert statement's
output(error) on screen after failing. Failing a _Static_assert in C
should not report that static_assert failed. It’d probably be better to
reword the diagnostic to be more like GCC and say “static assertion”
failed in both C and C++.
consider a c file having code
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
In clang the output is like:
<source>:1:1: error: static_assert failed: oh no!
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
^ ~
1 error generated.
Compiler returned: 1
Thus here the "static_assert" is not much good, it will be better to
reword it to the "static assertion failed" to more generic. as the gcc
prints as:
<source>:1:1: error: static assertion failed: "oh no!"
1 | _Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Compiler returned: 1
The above can also be seen here. This patch is about rewording
the static_assert to static assertion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
This reverts commit b7e77ff25fb2412f6ab6d6cc756666b0e2f97bd3.
Reason: Broke sanitizer builds bots + libcxx. 'static assertion
expression is not an integral constant expression'. More details
available in the Phabricator review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"
when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes some
instances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in the
source code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
Before D126061, Clang would warn about this code
```
struct X {
[[deprecated]] struct Y {};
};
```
with the warning
attribute 'deprecated' is ignored, place it after "struct" to apply attribute to type declaration
D126061 inadvertently caused this warning to no longer be emitted. This patch
restores the previous behavior.
The reason for the bug is that after D126061, C++11 attributes applied to a
member declaration are no longer placed in `DS.getAttributes()` but are instead
tracked in a separate list (`DeclAttrs`). In the case of a free-standing
decl-specifier-seq, we would simply ignore the contents of this list. Instead,
we now pass the list on to `Sema::ParsedFreeStandingDeclSpec()` so that it can
issue the appropriate warning.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128499
For backwards compatiblity, we emit only a warning instead of an error if the
attribute is one of the existing type attributes that we have historically
allowed to "slide" to the `DeclSpec` just as if it had been specified in GNU
syntax. (We will call these "legacy type attributes" below.)
The high-level changes that achieve this are:
- We introduce a new field `Declarator::DeclarationAttrs` (with appropriate
accessors) to store C++11 attributes occurring in the attribute-specifier-seq
at the beginning of a simple-declaration (and other similar declarations).
Previously, these attributes were placed on the `DeclSpec`, which made it
impossible to reconstruct later on whether the attributes had in fact been
placed on the decl-specifier-seq or ahead of the declaration.
- In the parser, we propgate declaration attributes and decl-specifier-seq
attributes separately until we can place them in
`Declarator::DeclarationAttrs` or `DeclSpec::Attrs`, respectively.
- In `ProcessDeclAttributes()`, in addition to processing declarator attributes,
we now also process the attributes from `Declarator::DeclarationAttrs` (except
if they are legacy type attributes).
- In `ConvertDeclSpecToType()`, in addition to processing `DeclSpec` attributes,
we also process any legacy type attributes that occur in
`Declarator::DeclarationAttrs` (and emit a warning).
- We make `ProcessDeclAttribute` emit an error if it sees any non-declaration
attributes in C++11 syntax, except in the following cases:
- If it is being called for attributes on a `DeclSpec` or `DeclaratorChunk`
- If the attribute is a legacy type attribute (in which case we only emit
a warning)
The standard justifies treating attributes at the beginning of a
simple-declaration and attributes after a declarator-id the same. Here are some
relevant parts of the standard:
- The attribute-specifier-seq at the beginning of a simple-declaration
"appertains to each of the entities declared by the declarators of the
init-declarator-list" (https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.dcl#dcl.pre-3)
- "In the declaration for an entity, attributes appertaining to that entity can
appear at the start of the declaration and after the declarator-id for that
declaration." (https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.dcl#dcl.pre-note-2)
- "The optional attribute-specifier-seq following a declarator-id appertains to
the entity that is declared."
(https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.dcl#dcl.meaning.general-1)
The standard contains similar wording to that for a simple-declaration in other
similar types of declarations, for example:
- "The optional attribute-specifier-seq in a parameter-declaration appertains to
the parameter." (https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.fct#3)
- "The optional attribute-specifier-seq in an exception-declaration appertains
to the parameter of the catch clause" (https://eel.is/c++draft/except.pre#1)
The new behavior is tested both on the newly added type attribute
`annotate_type`, for which we emit errors, and for the legacy type attribute
`address_space` (chosen somewhat randomly from the various legacy type
attributes), for which we emit warnings.
Depends On D111548
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126061
Currently, Clang accepts this code in C mode (where the tag is required
to be used) but rejects it in C++ mode thinking that the association is
defining a new type.
void foo(void) {
struct S { int a; };
_Generic(something, struct S : 1);
}
Clang thinks this in C++ because it sees struct S : when parsing the
class specifier and decides that must be a type definition (because the
colon signifies the presence of a base class type). This patch adds a
new declarator context to represent a _Generic association so that we
can distinguish these situations properly.
Fixes#55562
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126969
As @rsmith commented on https://reviews.llvm.org/D111548: "That looks like it's
simply a bug as far as I can tell, and that call can be removed. MS attributes
will be parsed as part of the decl specifier sequence as needed and don't need
to be parsed as declaration attributes."
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126062
HLSL doesn't support access specifiers. This change has two components:
1) Make default access for classes public
2) Diagnose the use of access specifiers as a clang HLSL extension
As long as the default behavior for access specifiers matches HLSL,
allowing them to be used doesn't cause sourece incompatability with
valid code. As such enabling them as a clang extension seems like a
reasonable approach.
Fixes#55124
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124487
Partially implement the proposed resolution to CWG2569.
D119136 broke some libstdc++ code, as P2036R3, implemented as a DR to
C++11 made ill-formed some previously valid and innocuous code.
We resolve this issue to allow decltype(x) - but not decltype((x)
to appear in the parameter list of a lambda that capture x by copy.
Unlike CWG2569, we do not extend that special treatment to
sizeof/noexcept yet, as the resolution has not been approved yet
and keeping the review small allows a quicker fix of impacted code.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123909
Updating the diagnostics as per the feedback on
https://reviews.llvm.org/D122627.
This change correctly handles missing argument lists, and changes the
subject for the `numthreads` attribute to be global functions.
I did not handle applying the attribute to template functions because
that currently fails parsing in a way that is consisetent with the
current DXC codebase (Microsoft attributes are not supported on
templates).
A future improvement to the diagnostic maybe warranted.
HLSL uses Microsoft-style attributes `[attr]`, which clang mostly
ignores. For HLSL we need to handle known Microsoft attributes, and to
maintain C/C++ as-is we ignore unknown attributes.
To utilize this new code path, this change adds the HLSL `numthreads`
attribute.
Reviewed By: rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122627
Move the SourceRange from the old ParsedAttributesWithRange into
ParsedAttributesView, so we have source range information available
everywhere we use attributes.
This also removes ParsedAttributesWithRange (replaced by simply using
ParsedAttributes) and ParsedAttributesVieWithRange (replaced by using
ParsedAttributesView).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121201
GCC supports:
- `namespace <gnu attributes> identifier`
- `namespace identifier <gnu attributes>`
But clang supports only `namespace identifier <gnu attributes>` and diagnostics for `namespace <gnu attributes> identifier` case looks unclear:
Code:
```
namespace __attribute__((visibility("hidden"))) A
{
}
```
Diags:
```
test.cpp:1:49: error: expected identifier or '{'
namespace __attribute__((visibility("hidden"))) A
^
test.cpp:1:49: error: C++ requires a type specifier for all declarations
test.cpp:3:2: error: expected ';' after top level declarator
}
```
This patch adds support for `namespace <gnu attributes> identifier` and also forbids gnu attributes for nested namespaces (this already done for C++ attributes).
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121245
It's almost always entirely unused and if it is used, the end of the
attribute range can be used instead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120888
Implementation is based on the "expected type" as used for
designated-initializers in braced init lists. This means it can deduce the type
in some cases where it's not written:
void foo(Widget);
foo({ /*help here*/ });
Only basic constructor calls are in scope of this patch, excluded are:
- aggregate initialization (no help is offered for aggregates)
- initializer_list initialization (no help is offered for these constructors)
Fixes https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/306
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116317
Only the bare name is completed, with no args.
For args to be useful we need arg names. These *are* in the tablegen but
not currently emitted in usable form, so left this as future work.
C++11, C2x, GNU, declspec, MS syntax is supported, with the appropriate
spellings of attributes suggested.
`#pragma clang attribute` is supported but not terribly useful as we
only reach completion if parens are balanced (i.e. the line is not truncated)
There's no filtering of which attributes might make sense in this
grammatical context (e.g. attached to a function). In code-completion context
this is hard to do, and will only work in few cases :-(
There's also no filtering by langopts: this is because currently the
only way of checking is to try to produce diagnostics, which requires a
valid ParsedAttr which is hard to get.
This should be fairly simple to fix but requires some tablegen changes
to expose the logic without the side-effect.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107696
This patch implements paper P0692R1 from the C++20 standard. Disable usual access checking rules to template argument names in a declaration of partial specializations, explicit instantiation or explicit specialization (C++20 13.7.5/10, 13.9.1/6).
Fixes: https://llvm.org/PR37424
This patch also implements option *A* from this paper P0692R1 from the C++20 standard.
This patch follows the @rsmith suggestion from D78404.
Reviewed By: krisb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92024
Previously we would show an error, but keep the member, and also the
CXXRrecordDecl, valid. This could lead to crashes when attempting to
access the record layout or size.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105478
OpenMP 5.1 added support for writing OpenMP directives using [[]]
syntax in addition to using #pragma and this introduces support for the
new syntax.
In OpenMP, the attributes take one of two forms:
[[omp::directive(...)]] or [[omp::sequence(...)]]. A directive
attribute contains an OpenMP directive clause that is identical to the
analogous #pragma syntax. A sequence attribute can contain either
sequence or directive arguments and is used to ensure that the
attributes are processed sequentially for situations where the order of
the attributes matter (remember:
https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.attr.grammar#4.sentence-4).
The approach taken here is somewhat novel and deserves mention. We
could refactor much of the OpenMP parsing logic to work for either
pragma annotation tokens or for attribute clauses. It would be a fair
amount of effort to share the logic for both, but it's certainly
doable. However, the semantic attribute system is not designed to
handle the arbitrarily complex arguments that OpenMP directives
contain. Adding support to thread the novel parsed information until we
can produce a semantic attribute would be considerably more effort.
What's more, existing OpenMP constructs are not (often) represented as
semantic attributes. So doing this through Attr.td would be a massive
undertaking that would likely only benefit OpenMP and comes with
additional risks. Rather than walk down that path, I am taking
advantage of the fact that the syntax of the directives within the
directive clause is identical to that of the #pragma form. Once the
parser recognizes that we're processing an OpenMP attribute, it caches
all of the directive argument tokens and then replays them as though
the user wrote a pragma. This reuses the same OpenMP parsing and
semantic logic directly, but does come with a risk if the OpenMP
committee decides to purposefully diverge their pragma and attribute
syntaxes. So, despite this being a novel approach that does token
replay, I think it's actually a better approach than trying to do this
through the declarative syntax in Attr.td.
This implements the 'using enum maybe-qualified-enum-tag ;' part of
1099. It introduces a new 'UsingEnumDecl', subclassed from
'BaseUsingDecl'. Much of the diff is the boilerplate needed to get the
new class set up.
There is one case where we accept ill-formed, but I believe this is
merely an extended case of an existing bug, so consider it
orthogonal. AFAICT in class-scope the c++20 rule is that no 2 using
decls can bring in the same target decl ([namespace.udecl]/8). But we
already accept:
struct A { enum { a }; };
struct B : A { using A::a; };
struct C : B { using A::a;
using B::a; }; // same enumerator
this patch permits mixtures of 'using enum Bob;' and 'using Bob::member;' in the same way.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102241
This is a re-application of dc67299 which was reverted in f63adf5b because
it broke the build. The issue should now be fixed.
Attribution note: The original author of this patch is Erik Pilkington.
I'm only trying to land it after rebasing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91630
Double square bracket attribute arguments can be arbitrarily complex,
and the attribute argument parsing logic recovers by skipping tokens.
As a fallback recovery mechanism, parse recovery stops before reading a
semicolon. This could lead to an infinite loop in the attribute list
parsing logic.
These proposals make the same changes to both C++ and C and remove a
restriction on standard attributes appearing multiple times in the same
attribute list.
We could warn on the duplicate attributes, but do not. This is for
consistency as we do not warn on attributes duplicated within the
attribute specifier sequence. If we want to warn on duplicated
standard attributes, we should do so both for both situations:
[[foo, foo]] and [[foo]][[foo]].
Clang currently has a bug where it allows you to write [[foo bar]] and
both attributes are silently accepted. This patch corrects the comma
parsing rules for such attributes and handles the test case fallout, as
a few tests were accidentally doing this.
Set the source ranges for parsed GNU-style attributes in
ParseGNUAttributes(), the same way that ParseCXX11Attributes() does it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75844
... instantiations
They are currently not being diagnosed because ProhibitAttributes() does
not handle attribute lists with an invalid source range. But once it
does, we need to allow GNU attributes in this place.
Additionally, start optionally diagnosing empty attr lists in
ProhibitCXX11Attributes(), since ProhibitAttribute() does it.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97362
Somewhat surprisingly, signature help is emitted as a side-effect of
computing the expected type of a function argument.
The reason is that both actions require enumerating the possible
function signatures and running partial overload resolution, and doing
this twice would be wasteful and complicated.
Change #1: document this, it's subtle :-)
However, sometimes we need to compute the expected type without having
reached the code completion cursor yet - in particular to allow
completion of designators.
eb4ab3358cd4dc834a761191b5531b38114f7b13 did this but introduced a
regression - it emits signature help in the wrong location as a side-effect.
Change #2: only emit signature help if the code completion cursor was reached.
Currently there is PP.isCodeCompletionReached(), but we can't use it
because it's set *after* running code completion.
It'd be nice to set this implicitly when the completion token is lexed,
but ConsumeCodeCompletionToken() makes this complicated.
Change #3: call cutOffParsing() *first* when seeing a completion token.
After this, the fact that the Sema::Produce*SignatureHelp() functions
are even more confusing, as they only sometimes do that.
I don't want to rename them in this patch as it's another large
mechanical change, but we should soon.
Change #4: prepare to rename ProduceSignatureHelp() to GuessArgumentType() etc.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98488
Previously, the CurFPFeatures state was set to command line settings before
semantic analysis of the nested member functions and initialization
expressions, that's not correct, it should use the pragma state which
is in effect at the lexical position.
Reviewed By: Erich Keane, Aaron Ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98211
Our diagnostics relating to static assertions were a bit confused. For
instance, when in MS compatibility mode in C (where we accept
static_assert even without including <assert.h>), we would fail
to warn the user that they were using the wrong spelling (even in
pedantic mode), we were missing a compatibility warning about using
_Static_assert in earlier standards modes, diagnostics for the optional
message were not reflected in C as they were in C++, etc.
If a static assert has a message as the right side of an and condition, suggest a fix it of replacing the '&&' to ','.
`static_assert(cond && "Failed Cond")` -> `static_assert(cond, "Failed cond")`
This use case comes up when lazily replacing asserts with static asserts.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89065
