This relands https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135119, after
fixing crashes seen in LLDB CI reported here:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135119#issuecomment-2794910840
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135119
This changes the TemplateArgument representation to hold a flag
indicating whether a tempalte argument of expression type is supposed to
be canonical or not.
This gets one step closer to solving
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/92292
This still doesn't try to unique as-written TSTs. While this would
increase the amount of memory savings and make code dealing with the AST
more well-behaved, profiling template argument lists is still too
expensive for this to be worthwhile, at least for now.
This also fixes the context creation of TSTs, so that they don't in some
cases get incorrectly flagged as sugar over their own canonical form.
This is captured in the test expectation change of some AST dumps.
This fixes some places which were unnecessarily canonicalizing these
TSTs.
This changes the TemplateArgument representation to hold a flag
indicating whether a template argument of expression type is supposed to
be canonical or not.
This gets one step closer to solving
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/92292
This still doesn't try to unique as-written TSTs. While this would
increase the amount of memory savings and make code dealing with the AST
more well-behaved, profiling template argument lists is still too
expensive for this to be worthwhile, at least for now. Without this
uniquing, this patch stands neutral in terms of performance impact.
This also fixes the context creation of TSTs, so that they don't in some
cases get incorrectly flagged as sugar over their own canonical form.
This is captured in the test expectation change of some AST dumps.
This fixes some places which were unnecessarily canonicalizing these
TSTs.
This PR would fix#16855 .
The correct lookup to use for class names is Tag name lookup,
because it does not take namespaces into account. The lookup before
does and because of this some valid programs are not accepted.
An example scenario of a valid program being declined is when you have a struct (let's call it `y`) inheriting from another struct with a name `x` but the struct `y` is in a namespace that is also called `x`:
```
struct x
{};
namespace
{
namespace x
{
struct y : x
{};
}
}
```
This shall be accepted because:
```
C++ [class.derived]p2 (wrt lookup in a base-specifier): The lookup for
// the component name of the type-name or simple-template-id is type-only.
```
This reverts commit ce4aada6e2135e29839f672a6599db628b53295d and a
follow-up patch 8ef26f1289bf069ccc0d6383f2f4c0116a1206c1.
This new warning can not be fully suppressed by the
`-Wno-missing-dependent-template-keyword` flag, this gives developer no
time to do the cleanup in a large codebase, see https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98547#issuecomment-2228250884
Reapplies #92957, fixing an instance where the `template` keyword was
missing prior to a dependent name in `llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h`. An
_alias-declaration_ is used to work around a bug affecting GCC releases
before 11.1 (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94799) which
rejects the use of the `template` keyword prior to the
_nested-name-specifier_ in the class member access.
CWG1835 was one of the many core issues resolved by P1787R6: "Declarations and where to
find them" (http://wg21.link/p1787r6). Its resolution changes how
member-qualified names (as defined by [basic.lookup.qual.general] p2) are looked
up. This patch implementation that resolution.
Previously, an _identifier_ following `.` or `->` would be first looked
up in the type of the object expression (i.e. qualified lookup), and
then in the context of the _postfix-expression_ (i.e. unqualified
lookup) if nothing was found; the result of the second lookup was
required to name a class template. Notably, this second lookup would
occur even when the object expression was dependent, and its result
would be used to determine whether a `<` token is the start of a
_template-argument_list_.
The new wording in [basic.lookup.qual.general] p2 states:
> A member-qualified name is the (unique) component name, if any, of
> - an _unqualified-id_ or
> - a _nested-name-specifier_ of the form _`type-name ::`_ or
_`namespace-name ::`_
>
> in the id-expression of a class member access expression. A
***qualified name*** is
> - a member-qualified name or
> - the terminal name of
> - a _qualified-id_,
> - a _using-declarator_,
> - a _typename-specifier_,
> - a _qualified-namespace-specifier_, or
> - a _nested-name-specifier_, _elaborated-type-specifier_, or
_class-or-decltype_ that has a _nested-name-specifier_.
>
> The _lookup context_ of a member-qualified name is the type of its
associated object expression (considered dependent if the object
expression is type-dependent). The lookup context of any other qualified
name is the type, template, or namespace nominated by the preceding
_nested-name-specifier_.
And [basic.lookup.qual.general] p3 now states:
> _Qualified name lookup_ in a class, namespace, or enumeration performs
a search of the scope associated with it except as specified below.
Unless otherwise specified, a qualified name undergoes qualified name
lookup in its lookup context from the point where it appears unless the
lookup context either is dependent and is not the current instantiation
or is not a class or class template. If nothing is found by qualified
lookup for a member-qualified name that is the terminal name of a
_nested-name-specifier_ and is not dependent, it undergoes unqualified
lookup.
In non-standardese terms, these two paragraphs essentially state the
following:
- A name that immediately follows `.` or `->` in a class member access
expression is a member-qualified name
- A member-qualified name will be first looked up in the type of the
object expression `T` unless `T` is a dependent type that is _not_ the
current instantiation, e.g.
```
template<typename T>
struct A
{
void f(T* t)
{
this->x; // type of the object expression is 'A<T>'. although 'A<T>' is dependent, it is the
// current instantiation so we look up 'x' in the template definition context.
t->y; // type of the object expression is 'T' ('->' is transformed to '.' per [expr.ref]).
// 'T' is dependent and is *not* the current instantiation, so we lookup 'y' in the
// template instantiation context.
}
};
```
- If the first lookup finds nothing and:
- the member-qualified name is the first component of a
_nested-name-specifier_ (which could be an _identifier_ or a
_simple-template-id_), and either:
- the type of the object expression is the current instantiation and it
has no dependent base classes, or
- the type of the object expression is not dependent
then we lookup the name again, this time via unqualified lookup.
Although the second (unqualified) lookup is stated not to occur when the
member-qualified name is dependent, a dependent name will _not_ be
dependent once the template is instantiated, so the second lookup must
"occur" during instantiation if qualified lookup does not find anything.
This means that we must perform the second (unqualified) lookup during
parsing even when the type of the object expression is dependent, but
those results are _not_ used to determine whether a `<` token is the
start of a _template-argument_list_; they are stored so we can replicate
the second lookup during instantiation.
In even simpler terms (paraphrasing the meeting minutes from the review of P1787; see https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21summer2020/P1787%28Lookup%29Review2020-06-15Through2020-06-18):
- Unqualified lookup always happens for the first name in a
_nested-name-specifier_ that follows `.` or `->`
- The result of that lookup is only used to determine whether `<` is the
start of a _template-argument-list_ if the first (qualified) lookup
found nothing and the lookup context:
- is not dependent, or
- is the current instantiation and has no dependent base classes.
An example:
```
struct A
{
void f();
};
template<typename T>
using B = A;
template<typename T>
struct C : A
{
template<typename U>
void g();
void h(T* t)
{
this->g<int>(); // ok, '<' is the start of a template-argument-list ('g' was found via qualified lookup in the current instantiation)
this->B<void>::f(); // ok, '<' is the start of a template-argument-list (current instantiation has no dependent bases, 'B' was found via unqualified lookup)
t->g<int>(); // error: '<' means less than (unqualified lookup does not occur for a member-qualified name that isn't the first component of a nested-name-specifier)
t->B<void>::f(); // error: '<' means less than (unqualified lookup does not occur if the name is dependent)
t->template B<void>::f(); // ok: '<' is the start of a template-argument-list ('template' keyword used)
}
};
```
Some additional notes:
- Per [basic.lookup.qual.general] p1, lookup for a
member-qualified name only considers namespaces, types, and templates
whose specializations are types if it's an _identifier_ followed by
`::`; lookup for the component name of a _simple-template-id_ followed
by `::` is _not_ subject to this rule.
- The wording which specifies when the second unqualified lookup occurs
appears to be paradoxical. We are supposed to do it only for the first
component name of a _nested-name-specifier_ that follows `.` or `->`
when qualified lookup finds nothing. However, when that name is followed
by `<` (potentially starting a _simple-template-id_) we don't _know_
whether it will be the start of a _nested-name-specifier_ until we do
the lookup -- but we aren't supposed to do the lookup until we know it's
part of a _nested-name-specifier_! ***However***, since we only do the
second lookup when the first lookup finds nothing (and the name isn't
dependent), ***and*** since neither lookup is type-only, the only valid
option is for the name to be the _template-name_ in a
_simple-template-id_ that is followed by `::` (it can't be an
_unqualified-id_ naming a member because we already determined that the
lookup context doesn't have a member with that name). Thus, we can lock
into the _nested-name-specifier_ interpretation and do the second lookup
without having to know whether the _simple-template-id_ will be followed
by `::` yet.
Consider the following:
```
template<typename T>
struct A
{
struct B : A { };
};
```
According to [class.derived.general] p2:
> [...] A _class-or-decltype_ shall denote a (possibly cv-qualified)
class type that is not an incompletely defined class; any cv-qualifiers
are ignored. [...]
Although GCC and EDG rejects this, Clang accepts it. This is incorrect,
as `A` is incomplete within its own definition (outside of a
complete-class context). This patch correctly diagnoses instances where
the current instantiation is used as a base class before it is complete.
Conversely, Clang erroneously rejects the following:
```
template<typename T>
struct A
{
struct B;
struct C : B { };
struct B : C { }; // error: circular inheritance between 'C' and 'A::B'
};
```
Though it may seem like no valid specialization of this template can be
instantiated, an explicit specialization of either member classes for an
implicit instantiated specialization of `A` would permit the definition
of the other member class to be instantiated, e.g.:
```
template<>
struct A<int>::B { };
A<int>::C c; // ok
```
So this patch also does away with this error. This means that circular
inheritance is diagnosed during instantiation of the definition as a
consequence of requiring the base class type to be complete (matching
the behavior of GCC and EDG).
Previously when fixing ambiguous lookup diagnostics in
cc1b6668c57170cd440d321037ced89d6a61a9cb The change refactored
`LookupResult` to split out diagnosing access and ambiguous lookups. The
call to `getSema().CheckLookupAccess(...)` should have guarded by a
check for isAmbiguous(). This change adds that guard.
Fixes: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/80435
We have a new policy in place making links to private resources
something we try to avoid in source and test files. Normally, we'd
organically switch to the new policy rather than make a sweeping change
across a project. However, Clang is in a somewhat special circumstance
currently: recently, I've had several new contributors run into rdar
links around test code which their patch was changing the behavior of.
This turns out to be a surprisingly bad experience, especially for
newer folks, for a handful of reasons: not understanding what the link
is and feeling intimidated by it, wondering whether their changes are
actually breaking something important to a downstream in some way,
having to hunt down strangers not involved with the patch to impose on
them for help, accidental pressure from asking for potentially private
IP to be made public, etc. Because folks run into these links entirely
by chance (through fixing bugs or working on new features), there's not
really a set of problematic links to focus on -- all of the links have
basically the same potential for causing these problems. As a result,
this is an omnibus patch to remove all such links.
This was not a mechanical change; it was done by manually searching for
rdar, radar, radr, and other variants to find all the various
problematic links. From there, I tried to retain or reword the
surrounding comments so that we would lose as little context as
possible. However, because most links were just a plain link with no
supporting context, the majority of the changes are simple removals.
Differential Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D158071
The C++ standard allows abstract parameters in deleted functions
and in function declarations
> The type of a parameter or the return type for a function definition
> shall not be a (possibly cv-qualified) class type that is
> incomplete or abstract within the function body
> unless the function is deleted.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/63012
Reviewed By: #clang-language-wg, aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D152096
Adds a fix to the diagnostic of replacing the `= default` to `= delete`
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D134549
function and an overridden function until we know whether the overriding
function is deleted.
We previously did these checks when we first built the declaration,
which was too soon in some cases. We now defer all these checks to the
end of the class.
Also add missing check that a consteval function cannot override a
non-consteval function and vice versa.
Now with concepts support merged and mostly complete, we do not need -fconcepts-ts
(which was also misleading as we were not implementing the TS) and can enable
concepts features under C++2a. A warning will be generated if users still attempt
to use -fconcepts-ts.
Function trailing requires clauses now parsed, supported in overload resolution and when calling, referencing and taking the address of functions or function templates.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43357
render the function deleted instead of rendering the program ill-formed.
This change also adds an enabled-by-default warning for the case where
an explicitly-defaulted special member function of a non-template class
is implicitly deleted by the type checking rules. (This fires either due
to this language change or due to pre-C++20 reasons for the member being
implicitly deleted). I've tested this on a large codebase and found only
bugs (where the program means something that's clearly different from
what the programmer intended), so this is enabled by default, but we
should revisit this if there are problems with this being enabled by
default.
llvm-svn: 343285
Add a warning for shadowed variables across records. Referencing a
shadow'ed variable may not give the desired variable. Add an optional
warning for the shadowing.
Patch by James Sun!
llvm-svn: 294401
constructs that can do so into the initialization code. This fixes a number
of different cases in which we used to fail to check for abstract types.
Thanks to Tim Shen for inspiring the weird code that uncovered this!
llvm-svn: 289753
This CL has caused bootstrap failures on Linux and OSX buildbots running with -Werror.
Example report from http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/13183/steps/bootstrap%20clang/logs/stdio:
================================================================
[ 91%] Building CXX object tools/clang/tools/diagtool/CMakeFiles/diagtool.dir/ShowEnabledWarnings.cpp.o
In file included from /home/dtoolsbot/build/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/build/llvm/lib/Target/R600/AMDGPUISelDAGToDAG.cpp:20:
In file included from /home/dtoolsbot/build/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/build/llvm/lib/Target/R600/SIISelLowering.h:19:
/home/dtoolsbot/build/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/build/llvm/lib/Target/R600/SIInstrInfo.h:71:8: error: 'getLdStBaseRegImmOfs' overrides a member function but is not marked 'override' [-Werror,-Winconsistent-missing-override]
bool getLdStBaseRegImmOfs(MachineInstr *LdSt,
^
/home/dtoolsbot/build/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/build/llvm/include/llvm/Target/TargetInstrInfo.h:815:16: note: overridden virtual function is here
virtual bool getLdStBaseRegImmOfs(MachineInstr *LdSt,
^
================================================================
llvm-svn: 218969
for an overriding method if class has at least one
'override' specified on one of its methods.
Reviewed by Doug Gregor. rdar://18295240
(I have already checked in all llvm files with missing 'override'
methods and Bob Wilson has fixed a TableGen of FastISel so
no warnings are expected from build of llvm after this patch.
I have already verified this).
llvm-svn: 218925
would be deleted are still declared, but are ignored by overload resolution.
Also, don't delete such members if a subobject has no corresponding move
operation and a non-trivial copy. This causes us to implicitly declare move
operations in more cases, but risks move-assigning virtual bases multiple
times in some circumstances (a warning for that is to follow).
llvm-svn: 193969
Consider something like the following:
struct X {
virtual void foo(float x);
};
struct Y : X {
void foo(double x) override;
};
The error is almost certainly that Y::foo() has the wrong signature,
rather than incorrect usage of the override keyword. This patch
adds an appropriate diagnostic for that case.
Fixes <rdar://problem/14785106>.
llvm-svn: 190109
overriding a non-deleted virtual function. The existing check for this doesn't
catch this case, because it fires before we mark the method as deleted.
llvm-svn: 178563
and defined within the current instantiation, but which are not part of the
current instantiation. Previously, it would look at bases which could be
specialized separately from the current template.
llvm-svn: 168477
we know whether the function is virtual. But check it as soon as we do know;
in some cases we don't need to wait for an instantiation.
llvm-svn: 161316
diagnostic message are compared. If either is a substring of the other, then
no error is given. This gives rise to an unexpected case:
// expect-error{{candidate function has different number of parameters}}
will match the following error messages from Clang:
candidate function has different number of parameters (expected 1 but has 2)
candidate function has different number of parameters
It will also match these other error messages:
candidate function
function has different number of parameters
number of parameters
This patch will change so that the verification string must be a substring of
the diagnostic message before accepting. Also, all the failing tests from this
change have been corrected. Some stats from this cleanup:
87 - removed extra spaces around verification strings
70 - wording updates to diagnostics
40 - extra leading or trailing characters (typos, unmatched parens or quotes)
35 - diagnostic level was included (error:, warning:, or note:)
18 - flag name put in the warning (-Wprotocol)
llvm-svn: 146619
members in class subobjects of different types. So long as the
underlying declaration sets are the same, and the declaration sets
involve non-instance members, this is not an ambiguity.
llvm-svn: 117163
function within a class hierarchy (C++ [class.virtual]p2).
We use the final-overrider computation to determine when a particular
class is ill-formed because it has multiple final overriders for a
given virtual function (e.g., because two virtual functions override
the same virtual function in the same virtual base class). Fixes
PR5973.
We also use the final-overrider computation to determine which virtual
member functions are pure when determining whether a class is
abstract or diagnosing the improper use of an abstract class. The
prior approach to determining whether there were any pure virtual
functions in a class didn't cope with virtual base class subobjects
properly, and could not easily be fixed to deal with the oddities of
subobject hiding. Fixes PR6631.
llvm-svn: 99351
