When revisiting a variable, we do that by simply calling visitDecl() for
it, which means it will end up with the same EvalID as the rest of the
evaluation - but this way we end up allowing reads from mutable
variables. Disallow that.
…723)"
This reverts commit 1e2ad6793ac205607e7c809283cf69e1cc36a69a.
Fix the previous commit on big-endian hosts by _not_ falling through to
the `uint8_t` code path.
Make sure we run each configuration once with the bytecode interpreter
and once with the current one. Add a triple to the one that was
previously without.
This introduces some tablegen helpers for defining compatibility
warnings. The main aim of this is to both simplify adding new
compatibility warnings as well as to unify the naming of compatibility
warnings.
I’ve refactored ~half of the compatiblity warnings (that follow the
usual scheme) in `DiagnosticSemaKinds.td` for illustration purposes and
also to simplify/unify the wording of some of them (I also corrected a
typo in one of them as a drive-by fix).
I haven’t (yet) migrated *all* warnings even in that one file, and there
are some more specialised ones for which the scheme I’ve established
here doesn’t work (e.g. because they’re warning+error instead of
warning+extwarn; however, warning+extension *is* supported), but the
point of this isn’t to implement *all* compatibility-related warnings
this way, only to make the common case a bit easier to handle.
This currently also only handles C++ compatibility warnings, but it
should be fairly straight-forward to extend the tablegen code so it can
also be used for C compatibility warnings (if this gets merged, I’m
planning to do that in a follow-up pr).
The vast majority of compatibility warnings are emitted by writing
```c++
Diag(Loc, getLangOpts().CPlusPlusYZ ? diag::ext_... : diag::warn_...)
```
in accordance with which I’ve chosen the following naming scheme:
```c++
Diag(Loc, getLangOpts().CPlusPlusYZ ? diag::compat_cxxyz_foo : diag::compat_pre_cxxyz_foo)
```
That is, for a warning about a C++20 feature—i.e. C++≤17
compatibility—we get:
```c++
Diag(Loc, getLangOpts().CPlusPlus20 ? diag::compat_cxx20_foo : diag::compat_pre_cxx20_foo)
```
While there is an argument to be made against writing ‘`compat_cxx20`’
here since is technically a case of ‘C++17 compatibility’ and not ‘C++20
compatibility’, I at least find this easier to reason about, because I
can just write the same number 3 times instead of having to use
`ext_cxx20_foo` but `warn_cxx17_foo`. Instead, I like to read this as a
warning about the ‘compatibility *of* a C++20 feature’ rather than
‘*with* C++17’.
I also experimented with moving all compatibility warnings to a separate
file, but 1. I don’t think it’s worth the effort, and 2. I think it
hurts compile times a bit because at least in my testing I felt that I
had to recompile more code than if we just keep e.g. Sema-specific
compat warnings in the Sema diagnostics file.
Instead, I’ve opted to put them all in the same place within any one
file; currently this is a the very top but I don’t really have strong
opinions about this.
WG14 N2819 clarified that a compound literal within a function prototype
has a lifetime similar to that of a local variable within the function,
not a file scope variable.
This implements the R2 semantics of P0963.
The R1 semantics, as outlined in the paper, were introduced in Clang 6.
In addition to that, the paper proposes swapping the evaluation order of
condition expressions and the initialization of binding declarations
(i.e. std::tuple-like decompositions).
This is similar to what the current interpreter is doing - the
FoldConstant RAII object surrounds the entire HandleConditionalOperator
call, which means the condition and both TrueExpr or FalseExpr.
getRecord() returns null on array elements, even for composite arrays.
The assertion here was overly restrictive and having an array element as
instance pointer should be fine otherwise.
Use the regular code paths for interpreting.
Add new instructions: `StartSpeculation` will reset the diagnostics
pointers to `nullptr`, which will keep us from reporting any diagnostics
during speculation. `EndSpeculation` will undo this.
The rest depends on what `Emitter` we use.
For `EvalEmitter`, we have no bytecode, so we implement `speculate()` by
simply visiting the first argument of `__builtin_constant_p`. If the
evaluation fails, we push a `0` on the stack, otherwise a `1`.
For `ByteCodeEmitter`, add another instrucion called `BCP`, that
interprets all the instructions following it until the next
`EndSpeculation` instruction. If any of those instructions fails, we
jump to the `EndLabel`, which brings us right before the
`EndSpeculation`. We then push the result on the stack.
Instead of manually adding a note pointing to the relevant template
parameter to every relevant error, which is very easy to miss, this
patch adds a new instantiation context note, so that this can work using
RAII magic.
This fixes a bunch of places where these notes were missing, and is more
future-proof.
Some diagnostics are reworked to make better use of this note:
- Errors about missing template arguments now refer to the parameter
which is missing an argument.
- Template Template parameter mismatches now refer to template
parameters as parameters instead of arguments.
It's likely this will add the note to some diagnostics where the
parameter is not super relevant, but this can be reworked with time and
the decrease in maintenance burden makes up for it.
This bypasses the templight dumper for the new context entry, as the
tests are very hard to update.
This depends on #125453, which is needed to avoid losing the context
note for errors occuring during template argument deduction.
The APValue we generated for a pointer with a LValueReferenceType base
had an incorrect lvalue path attached.
The attached test case is extracted from libc++'s regex.cpp.
…tExpr
If the ImplicitValueInitExpr is of incomplete array type, we ignore it
in its Visit function. This is a special case here, so pull out the
element type and zero the elements.
