This is the last item of the OpenACC 3.3 spec. It includes the
implicit-name version of 'routine', plus significant refactorings to
make the two work together. The implicit name version is represented as
an attribute on the function call. This patch also implements the
clauses for the implicit-name version, as well as the A.3.4 warning.
Clang already removes parsed enumerators when merging typedefs to
anonymous enums. This is why the following example decl used to be
handled correctly while merging, and ASTWriter behaves as expected:
```c
typedef enum { Val } AnonEnum;
```
However, the mentioned mechanism didn't handle named enums. This leads
to stale declarations in `IdResolver`, causing an assertion violation in
ASTWriter ``Assertion `DeclIDs.contains(D) && "Declaration not
emitted!"' failed`` when a module is being serialized with the following
example merged enums:
```c
typedef enum Enum1 { Val_A } Enum1;
enum Enum2 { Val_B };
```
The PR applies the same mechanism in the named enums case.
Additionally, I dropped the call to
`getLexicalDeclContext()->removeDecl` as it was causing a wrong
odr-violation diagnostic with anonymous enums.
Might be easier to to review commit by commit. Any feedback is
appreciated.
### Context
This fixes frontend crashes that were encountered when certain
Objective-C modules are included on Xcode 16. For example, by running
`CC=/path/to/clang-19 xcodebuild clean build` on a project that contains
the following Objective-C file:
```c
#include <os/atomic.h>
int main() {
return memory_order_relaxed;
}
```
This crashes the parser in release, when ASTReader tries to load the
enumerator declaration.
`__is_referenceable` is almost unused in the wild, and the few cases I
was able to find had checks around them. Since the places in the
standard library where `__is_referenceable` is used have bespoke
builtins, it doesn't make a ton of sense to keep this builtin around.
`__is_referenceable` has been documented as deprecated in Clang 20.
Added a new `-Wpre-c++26-compat` warning for when this feature is used
in C++26 and a `-Wc++26-extensions` warning for when this is used in
C++11 through C++23.
---------
Co-authored-by: cor3ntin <corentinjabot@gmail.com>
Diagnose this early after parsing declaration specifiers; this allows us
to issue a better diagnostic. This also checks for `concept friend` and
concept declarations w/o a template-head because it’s easiest to do that
at the same time.
Fixes#45182.
`is_null_pointer` can be implemented very efficiently as
`__is_same(__remove_cv(T), decltype(nullptr))`. Since GCC supports both
of these builtins as well, libc++ has no interest in using
`__is_nullptr` instead. Furthermore, I could find only a single use in
the wild
(https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+__is_nullptr%28+-file:clang&patternType=keyword&sm=0).
Because of these reasons I don't think it's worth keeping this builtin
around.
Implements `export` keyword in HLSL.
There are two ways the `export` keyword can be used:
1. On individual function declarations
```
export void f() {}
```
2. On a group of function declaration:
```
export {
void f1();
void f2() {}
}
```
Functions declared with the `export` keyword have external linkage. The
implementation does not include validation of when a function can or
cannot be exported, such as when it has resource argument or semantic
annotations. That will be covered by llvm/llvm-project#93330.
Currently all function declarations in global or named namespaces have
external linkage by default so there are no specific code changes
required right now to make sure exported function have external linkage
as well. That will change as part of llvm/llvm-project#92071. Any
additional changes to make sure exported functions still have external
linkage will be done as part of this work item.
Fixes#92812
`MaybeParseHLSLAnnotations` should be run on Field Decls instead of just
assuming that any colon after a field decl is a bitfield. In the case
that HLSL is the language, the code after the colon may be an
annotation. This PR gives the parser a chance to parse the subsequent
text as if it was an HLSL annotation.
The burden of parsing is now on the HLSL parser, but the actual work
needs to be done in handling every case of an hlsl annotation on a field
decl. SV_DispatchThreadID was straightforward enough to implement in
this PR, and tests have been added that the annotation appears as an
attribute in the AST.
Previously, the `hlsl_annotations_on_struct_members.hlsl` test would
result in an error shown below on the line that declares variable `a` in
struct Eg9:
error: use of undeclared identifier
'SV_DispatchThreadID'
This is because the annotation is parsed as if it was a c++ bit field,
and an identifier
that represents an integer is expected, but not found.
This test ensures that hlsl annotations are parsed when parsing struct
decls.
This test not only ensures we make progress by moving the validation
error from the realm of
C++ and expecting bitfields, to HLSL and a specialized error for the
recognized annotation, but also
validates that the parser does parse the annotation and adds an
attribute to the field decl in the AST.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57889
According to [temp.expl.spec] p2:
> The declaration in an _explicit-specialization_ shall not be an
_export-declaration_. An explicit specialization shall not use a
_storage-class-specifier_ other than `thread_local`.
Clang partially implements this, but a number of issues exist:
1. We don't diagnose class scope explicit specializations of variable
templates with _storage-class-specifiers_, e.g.
```
struct A
{
template<typename T>
static constexpr int x = 0;
template<>
static constexpr int x<void> = 1; // ill-formed, but clang accepts
};
````
2. We incorrectly reject class scope explicit specializations of
variable templates when `static` is not used, e.g.
```
struct A
{
template<typename T>
static constexpr int x = 0;
template<>
constexpr int x<void> = 1; // error: non-static data member cannot be
constexpr; did you intend to make it static?
};
````
3. We don't diagnose dependent class scope explicit specializations of
function templates with storage class specifiers, e.g.
```
template<typename T>
struct A
{
template<typename U>
static void f();
template<>
static void f<int>(); // ill-formed, but clang accepts
};
````
This patch addresses these issues as follows:
- # 1 is fixed by issuing a diagnostic when an explicit
specialization of a variable template has storage class specifier
- # 2 is fixed by considering any non-function declaration with any
template parameter lists at class scope to be a static data member. This
also allows for better error recovery (it's more likely the user
intended to declare a variable template than a "field template").
- # 3 is fixed by checking whether a function template explicit
specialization has a storage class specifier even when the primary
template is not yet known.
One thing to note is that it would be far simpler to diagnose this when
parsing the _decl-specifier-seq_, but such an implementation would
necessitate a refactor of `ParsedTemplateInfo` which I believe to be
outside the scope of this patch.
This is a followup to #81014 and #84582: Before this patch, Clang
would accept `__attribute__((assume))` and `[[clang::assume]]` as
nonstandard spellings for the `[[omp::assume]]` attribute; this
resulted in a potentially very confusing name clash with C++23’s
`[[assume]]` attribute (and GCC’s `assume` attribute with the same
semantics).
This pr replaces every usage of `__attribute__((assume))` with
`[[omp::assume]]` and makes `__attribute__((assume))` and
`[[clang::assume]]` alternative spellings for C++23’s `[[assume]]`;
this shouldn’t cause any problems due to differences in appertainment
and because almost no-one was using this variant spelling to begin
with (a use in libclc has already been changed to use a different
attribute).
This patch continues previous efforts to split `Sema` up, this time
covering code completion.
Context can be found in #84184.
Dropping `Code` prefix from function names in `SemaCodeCompletion` would
make sense, but I think this PR has enough changes already.
As usual, formatting changes are done as a separate commit. Hopefully
this helps with the review.
Currently, `new struct S` fails to set any valid end source location
because the token corresponding to `S` is consumed in
`ParseClassSpecifier` and is not accessible in the
`ParseDeclarationSpecifiers` that normally sets the end source location.
Fixes#35300
I'm planning to remove StringRef::equals in favor of
StringRef::operator==.
- StringRef::operator==/!= outnumber StringRef::equals by a factor of
24 under clang/ in terms of their usage.
- The elimination of StringRef::equals brings StringRef closer to
std::string_view, which has operator== but not equals.
- S == "foo" is more readable than S.equals("foo"), especially for
!Long.Expression.equals("str") vs Long.Expression != "str".
Try to fix https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/75221
This crash caused by calculating record layout which contains a field
declaration with dependent type. Make it invalid before it is a complete
definition to prevent this crash. Define a new scope type to record this
type alias and set the record declaration invalid when it is defined in
a type alias template.
Co-authored-by: huqizhi <836744285@qq.com>
This reverts commit ca4c4a6758d184f209cb5d88ef42ecc011b11642.
This was intended not to introduce new consistency diagnostics for
smart pointer types, but failed to ignore sugar around types when
detecting this.
Fixed and test added.
This reverts commit 92a09c0165b87032e1bd05020a78ed845cf35661.
This is triggering a bunch of new -Wnullability-completeness warnings
in code with existing raw pointer nullability annotations.
The intent was the new nullability locations wouldn't affect those
warnings, so this is a bug at least for now.
This enables clang and external nullability checkers to make use of
these annotations on nullable C++ class types like unique_ptr.
These types are recognized by the presence of the _Nullable attribute.
Nullable standard library types implicitly receive this attribute.
Existing static warnings for raw pointers are extended to smart
pointers:
- nullptr used as return value or argument for non-null functions
(`-Wnonnull`)
- assigning or initializing nonnull variables with nullable values
(`-Wnullable-to-nonnull-conversion`)
It doesn't implicitly add these attributes based on the assume_nonnull
pragma, nor warn on missing attributes where the pragma would apply
them.
I'm not confident that the pragma's current behavior will work well for
C++ (where type-based metaprogramming is much more common than C/ObjC).
We'd like to revisit this once we have more implementation experience.
Support can be detected as `__has_feature(nullability_on_classes)`.
This is needed for back-compatibility, as previously clang would issue a
hard error when _Nullable appears on a smart pointer.
UBSan's `-fsanitize=nullability` will not check smart-pointer types.
It can be made to do so by synthesizing calls to `operator bool`, but
that's left for future work.
Discussion:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-allowing-nonnull-etc-on-smart-pointers/77201/26
This pr implements the `[[omp::assume]]` spelling for the `__attribute__((assume))` attribute. It does not change anything about how that attribute is handled by the rest of Clang.
This implements the C++23 `[[assume]]` attribute.
Assumption information is lowered to a call to `@llvm.assume`, unless the expression has side-effects, in which case it is discarded and a warning is issued to tell the user that the assumption doesn’t do anything. A failed assumption at compile time is an error (unless we are in `MSVCCompat` mode, in which case we don’t check assumptions at compile time).
Due to performance regressions in LLVM, assumptions can be disabled with the `-fno-assumptions` flag. With it, assumptions will still be parsed and checked, but no calls to `@llvm.assume` will be emitted and assumptions will not be checked at compile time.
Our usual pattern when issuing an extension warning is to also issue a
default-off diagnostic about the keywords not being compatible with
standards before a certain point. This adds those diagnostics for C11
keywords.
In C++, alignas is an attribute specifier, while in C23, it's an alias
of _Alignas, which is a type specifier/qualifier. This means that they
parse differently in some circumstances.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/81472
According to [temp.pre] p5:
> In a template-declaration, explicit specialization, or explicit instantiation the init-declarator-list in the declaration shall contain at most one declarator.
A member-declaration that is a template-declaration or explicit-specialization contains a declaration, even though it declares a member. This means it _will_ contain an init-declarator-list (not a member-declarator-list), so [temp.pre] p5 applies.
This diagnoses declarations such as:
```
struct A
{
template<typename T>
static const int x = 0, f(); // error: a template declaration can only declare a single entity
template<typename T>
static const int g(), y = 0; // error: a template declaration can only declare a single entity
};
```
The diagnostic messages are the same as those of the equivalent namespace scope declarations.
Note: since we currently do not diagnose declarations with multiple abbreviated function template declarators at namespace scope e.g., `void f(auto), g(auto);`, so this patch does not add diagnostics for the equivalent member declarations.
This patch also refactors `ParseSingleDeclarationAfterTemplate` (now named `ParseDeclarationAfterTemplate`) to call `ParseDeclGroup` and return the resultant `DeclGroup`.
Implements https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P2662R3.pdf
The feature is exposed as an extension in older language modes.
Mangling is not yet supported and that is something we will have to do before release.
This patch replaces the `__arm_new_za`, `__arm_shared_za` and
`__arm_preserves_za` attributes in favour of:
* `__arm_new("za")`
* `__arm_in("za")`
* `__arm_out("za")`
* `__arm_inout("za")`
* `__arm_preserves("za")`
As described in https://github.com/ARM-software/acle/pull/276.
One change is that `__arm_in/out/inout/preserves(S)` are all mutually
exclusive, whereas previously it was fine to write `__arm_shared_za
__arm_preserves_za`. This case is now represented with `__arm_in("za")`.
The current implementation uses the same LLVM attributes under the hood,
since `__arm_in/out/inout` are all variations of "shared ZA", so can use
the existing `aarch64_pstate_za_shared` attribute in LLVM.
#77941 will add support for the new "zt0" state as introduced
with SME2.
- Support non-member functions and callable objects for size and data().
We previously tried to (badly) pick the best overload ourselves, in a
way that would only support member functions. We now leave clang
construct an unresolved member expression and call that, properly
performing overload resolution with callable objects and static
functions, consistent with the logic for `get` calls for structured
bindings.
- Support UDLs as message expression.
- Add tests and mark CWG2798 as resolved
