2015-01-28 09:01:21 +08:00
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++98 %s -verify -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++11 %s -verify -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++14 %s -verify -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++1z %s -verify -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors
P0136R1, DR1573, DR1645, DR1715, DR1736, DR1903, DR1941, DR1959, DR1991:
Replace inheriting constructors implementation with new approach, voted into
C++ last year as a DR against C++11.
Instead of synthesizing a set of derived class constructors for each inherited
base class constructor, we make the constructors of the base class visible to
constructor lookup in the derived class, using the normal rules for
using-declarations.
For constructors, UsingShadowDecl now has a ConstructorUsingShadowDecl derived
class that tracks the requisite additional information. We create shadow
constructors (not found by name lookup) in the derived class to model the
actual initialization, and have a new expression node,
CXXInheritedCtorInitExpr, to model the initialization of a base class from such
a constructor. (This initialization is special because it performs real perfect
forwarding of arguments.)
In cases where argument forwarding is not possible (for inalloca calls,
variadic calls, and calls with callee parameter cleanup), the shadow inheriting
constructor is not emitted and instead we directly emit the initialization code
into the caller of the inherited constructor.
Note that this new model is not perfectly compatible with the old model in some
corner cases. In particular:
* if B inherits a private constructor from A, and C uses that constructor to
construct a B, then we previously required that A befriends B and B
befriends C, but the new rules require A to befriend C directly, and
* if a derived class has its own constructors (and so its implicit default
constructor is suppressed), it may still inherit a default constructor from
a base class
llvm-svn: 274049
2016-06-29 03:03:57 +08:00
namespace dr1715 { // dr1715: 3.9
# if __cplusplus >= 201103L
struct B {
template < class T > B ( T , typename T : : Q ) ;
} ;
class S {
using Q = int ;
template < class T > friend B : : B ( T , typename T : : Q ) ;
} ;
struct D : B {
using B : : B ;
} ;
struct E : B { // expected-note 2{{candidate}}
template < class T > E ( T t , typename T : : Q q ) : B ( t , q ) { } // expected-note {{'Q' is a private member}}
} ;
B b ( S ( ) , 1 ) ;
D d ( S ( ) , 2 ) ;
E e ( S ( ) , 3 ) ; // expected-error {{no match}}
# endif
}
2022-07-13 03:24:19 +08:00
namespace dr1734 { // dr1734: no
# if __cplusplus >= 201103L
struct A {
A ( const A & ) = delete ;
} ;
// FIXME: 'A' should not be trivially copyable because the class lacks at least
// one non-deleted copy constructor, move constructor, copy assignment
// operator, or move assignment operator.
static_assert ( __is_trivially_copyable ( A ) , " " ) ;
# endif
}
P0136R1, DR1573, DR1645, DR1715, DR1736, DR1903, DR1941, DR1959, DR1991:
Replace inheriting constructors implementation with new approach, voted into
C++ last year as a DR against C++11.
Instead of synthesizing a set of derived class constructors for each inherited
base class constructor, we make the constructors of the base class visible to
constructor lookup in the derived class, using the normal rules for
using-declarations.
For constructors, UsingShadowDecl now has a ConstructorUsingShadowDecl derived
class that tracks the requisite additional information. We create shadow
constructors (not found by name lookup) in the derived class to model the
actual initialization, and have a new expression node,
CXXInheritedCtorInitExpr, to model the initialization of a base class from such
a constructor. (This initialization is special because it performs real perfect
forwarding of arguments.)
In cases where argument forwarding is not possible (for inalloca calls,
variadic calls, and calls with callee parameter cleanup), the shadow inheriting
constructor is not emitted and instead we directly emit the initialization code
into the caller of the inherited constructor.
Note that this new model is not perfectly compatible with the old model in some
corner cases. In particular:
* if B inherits a private constructor from A, and C uses that constructor to
construct a B, then we previously required that A befriends B and B
befriends C, but the new rules require A to befriend C directly, and
* if a derived class has its own constructors (and so its implicit default
constructor is suppressed), it may still inherit a default constructor from
a base class
llvm-svn: 274049
2016-06-29 03:03:57 +08:00
namespace dr1736 { // dr1736: 3.9
# if __cplusplus >= 201103L
struct S {
template < class T > S ( T t ) {
struct L : S {
using S : : S ;
} ;
typename T : : type value ; // expected-error {{no member}}
L l ( value ) ; // expected-note {{instantiation of}}
}
} ;
struct Q { typedef int type ; } q ;
S s ( q ) ; // expected-note {{instantiation of}}
# endif
}
2020-01-25 07:14:25 +08:00
namespace dr1753 { // dr1753: 11
typedef int T ;
struct A { typedef int T ; } ;
namespace B { typedef int T ; }
void f ( T n ) {
n . ~ T ( ) ;
n . T : : ~ T ( ) ;
n . dr1753 : : ~ T ( ) ; // expected-error {{'dr1753' does not refer to a type name in pseudo-destructor}}
n . dr1753 : : T : : ~ T ( ) ;
[clang] Implement ElaboratedType sugaring for types written bare
Without this patch, clang will not wrap in an ElaboratedType node types written
without a keyword and nested name qualifier, which goes against the intent that
we should produce an AST which retains enough details to recover how things are
written.
The lack of this sugar is incompatible with the intent of the type printer
default policy, which is to print types as written, but to fall back and print
them fully qualified when they are desugared.
An ElaboratedTypeLoc without keyword / NNS uses no storage by itself, but still
requires pointer alignment due to pre-existing bug in the TypeLoc buffer
handling.
---
Troubleshooting list to deal with any breakage seen with this patch:
1) The most likely effect one would see by this patch is a change in how
a type is printed. The type printer will, by design and default,
print types as written. There are customization options there, but
not that many, and they mainly apply to how to print a type that we
somehow failed to track how it was written. This patch fixes a
problem where we failed to distinguish between a type
that was written without any elaborated-type qualifiers,
such as a 'struct'/'class' tags and name spacifiers such as 'std::',
and one that has been stripped of any 'metadata' that identifies such,
the so called canonical types.
Example:
```
namespace foo {
struct A {};
A a;
};
```
If one were to print the type of `foo::a`, prior to this patch, this
would result in `foo::A`. This is how the type printer would have,
by default, printed the canonical type of A as well.
As soon as you add any name qualifiers to A, the type printer would
suddenly start accurately printing the type as written. This patch
will make it print it accurately even when written without
qualifiers, so we will just print `A` for the initial example, as
the user did not really write that `foo::` namespace qualifier.
2) This patch could expose a bug in some AST matcher. Matching types
is harder to get right when there is sugar involved. For example,
if you want to match a type against being a pointer to some type A,
then you have to account for getting a type that is sugar for a
pointer to A, or being a pointer to sugar to A, or both! Usually
you would get the second part wrong, and this would work for a
very simple test where you don't use any name qualifiers, but
you would discover is broken when you do. The usual fix is to
either use the matcher which strips sugar, which is annoying
to use as for example if you match an N level pointer, you have
to put N+1 such matchers in there, beginning to end and between
all those levels. But in a lot of cases, if the property you want
to match is present in the canonical type, it's easier and faster
to just match on that... This goes with what is said in 1), if
you want to match against the name of a type, and you want
the name string to be something stable, perhaps matching on
the name of the canonical type is the better choice.
3) This patch could expose a bug in how you get the source range of some
TypeLoc. For some reason, a lot of code is using getLocalSourceRange(),
which only looks at the given TypeLoc node. This patch introduces a new,
and more common TypeLoc node which contains no source locations on itself.
This is not an inovation here, and some other, more rare TypeLoc nodes could
also have this property, but if you use getLocalSourceRange on them, it's not
going to return any valid locations, because it doesn't have any. The right fix
here is to always use getSourceRange() or getBeginLoc/getEndLoc which will dive
into the inner TypeLoc to get the source range if it doesn't find it on the
top level one. You can use getLocalSourceRange if you are really into
micro-optimizations and you have some outside knowledge that the TypeLocs you are
dealing with will always include some source location.
4) Exposed a bug somewhere in the use of the normal clang type class API, where you
have some type, you want to see if that type is some particular kind, you try a
`dyn_cast` such as `dyn_cast<TypedefType>` and that fails because now you have an
ElaboratedType which has a TypeDefType inside of it, which is what you wanted to match.
Again, like 2), this would usually have been tested poorly with some simple tests with
no qualifications, and would have been broken had there been any other kind of type sugar,
be it an ElaboratedType or a TemplateSpecializationType or a SubstTemplateParmType.
The usual fix here is to use `getAs` instead of `dyn_cast`, which will look deeper
into the type. Or use `getAsAdjusted` when dealing with TypeLocs.
For some reason the API is inconsistent there and on TypeLocs getAs behaves like a dyn_cast.
5) It could be a bug in this patch perhaps.
Let me know if you need any help!
Signed-off-by: Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112374
2021-10-12 00:15:36 +08:00
n . A : : ~ T ( ) ; // expected-error {{the type of object expression ('T' (aka 'int')) does not match the type being destroyed ('A') in pseudo-destructor expression}}
2020-01-25 07:14:25 +08:00
n . A : : T : : ~ T ( ) ;
n . B : : ~ T ( ) ; // expected-error {{'B' does not refer to a type name in pseudo-destructor expression}}
n . B : : T : : ~ T ( ) ;
# if __cplusplus >= 201103L
n . decltype ( n ) : : ~ T ( ) ; // expected-error {{not a class, namespace, or enumeration}}
n . T : : ~ decltype ( n ) ( ) ; // expected-error {{expected a class name after '~'}}
n . ~ decltype ( n ) ( ) ; // OK
# endif
}
}
P0136R1, DR1573, DR1645, DR1715, DR1736, DR1903, DR1941, DR1959, DR1991:
Replace inheriting constructors implementation with new approach, voted into
C++ last year as a DR against C++11.
Instead of synthesizing a set of derived class constructors for each inherited
base class constructor, we make the constructors of the base class visible to
constructor lookup in the derived class, using the normal rules for
using-declarations.
For constructors, UsingShadowDecl now has a ConstructorUsingShadowDecl derived
class that tracks the requisite additional information. We create shadow
constructors (not found by name lookup) in the derived class to model the
actual initialization, and have a new expression node,
CXXInheritedCtorInitExpr, to model the initialization of a base class from such
a constructor. (This initialization is special because it performs real perfect
forwarding of arguments.)
In cases where argument forwarding is not possible (for inalloca calls,
variadic calls, and calls with callee parameter cleanup), the shadow inheriting
constructor is not emitted and instead we directly emit the initialization code
into the caller of the inherited constructor.
Note that this new model is not perfectly compatible with the old model in some
corner cases. In particular:
* if B inherits a private constructor from A, and C uses that constructor to
construct a B, then we previously required that A befriends B and B
befriends C, but the new rules require A to befriend C directly, and
* if a derived class has its own constructors (and so its implicit default
constructor is suppressed), it may still inherit a default constructor from
a base class
llvm-svn: 274049
2016-06-29 03:03:57 +08:00
namespace dr1756 { // dr1756: 3.7
2015-01-28 09:01:21 +08:00
# if __cplusplus >= 201103L
// Direct-list-initialization of a non-class object
int a { 0 } ;
struct X { operator int ( ) ; } x ;
int b { x } ;
P0136R1, DR1573, DR1645, DR1715, DR1736, DR1903, DR1941, DR1959, DR1991:
Replace inheriting constructors implementation with new approach, voted into
C++ last year as a DR against C++11.
Instead of synthesizing a set of derived class constructors for each inherited
base class constructor, we make the constructors of the base class visible to
constructor lookup in the derived class, using the normal rules for
using-declarations.
For constructors, UsingShadowDecl now has a ConstructorUsingShadowDecl derived
class that tracks the requisite additional information. We create shadow
constructors (not found by name lookup) in the derived class to model the
actual initialization, and have a new expression node,
CXXInheritedCtorInitExpr, to model the initialization of a base class from such
a constructor. (This initialization is special because it performs real perfect
forwarding of arguments.)
In cases where argument forwarding is not possible (for inalloca calls,
variadic calls, and calls with callee parameter cleanup), the shadow inheriting
constructor is not emitted and instead we directly emit the initialization code
into the caller of the inherited constructor.
Note that this new model is not perfectly compatible with the old model in some
corner cases. In particular:
* if B inherits a private constructor from A, and C uses that constructor to
construct a B, then we previously required that A befriends B and B
befriends C, but the new rules require A to befriend C directly, and
* if a derived class has its own constructors (and so its implicit default
constructor is suppressed), it may still inherit a default constructor from
a base class
llvm-svn: 274049
2016-06-29 03:03:57 +08:00
# endif
}
2015-01-28 09:01:21 +08:00
P0136R1, DR1573, DR1645, DR1715, DR1736, DR1903, DR1941, DR1959, DR1991:
Replace inheriting constructors implementation with new approach, voted into
C++ last year as a DR against C++11.
Instead of synthesizing a set of derived class constructors for each inherited
base class constructor, we make the constructors of the base class visible to
constructor lookup in the derived class, using the normal rules for
using-declarations.
For constructors, UsingShadowDecl now has a ConstructorUsingShadowDecl derived
class that tracks the requisite additional information. We create shadow
constructors (not found by name lookup) in the derived class to model the
actual initialization, and have a new expression node,
CXXInheritedCtorInitExpr, to model the initialization of a base class from such
a constructor. (This initialization is special because it performs real perfect
forwarding of arguments.)
In cases where argument forwarding is not possible (for inalloca calls,
variadic calls, and calls with callee parameter cleanup), the shadow inheriting
constructor is not emitted and instead we directly emit the initialization code
into the caller of the inherited constructor.
Note that this new model is not perfectly compatible with the old model in some
corner cases. In particular:
* if B inherits a private constructor from A, and C uses that constructor to
construct a B, then we previously required that A befriends B and B
befriends C, but the new rules require A to befriend C directly, and
* if a derived class has its own constructors (and so its implicit default
constructor is suppressed), it may still inherit a default constructor from
a base class
llvm-svn: 274049
2016-06-29 03:03:57 +08:00
namespace dr1758 { // dr1758: 3.7
# if __cplusplus >= 201103L
2015-01-28 09:01:21 +08:00
// Explicit conversion in copy/move list initialization
struct X { X ( ) ; } ;
struct Y { explicit operator X ( ) ; } y ;
X x { y } ;
struct A {
A ( ) { }
A ( const A & ) { }
} ;
struct B {
operator A ( ) { return A ( ) ; }
} b ;
A a { b } ;
# endif
P0136R1, DR1573, DR1645, DR1715, DR1736, DR1903, DR1941, DR1959, DR1991:
Replace inheriting constructors implementation with new approach, voted into
C++ last year as a DR against C++11.
Instead of synthesizing a set of derived class constructors for each inherited
base class constructor, we make the constructors of the base class visible to
constructor lookup in the derived class, using the normal rules for
using-declarations.
For constructors, UsingShadowDecl now has a ConstructorUsingShadowDecl derived
class that tracks the requisite additional information. We create shadow
constructors (not found by name lookup) in the derived class to model the
actual initialization, and have a new expression node,
CXXInheritedCtorInitExpr, to model the initialization of a base class from such
a constructor. (This initialization is special because it performs real perfect
forwarding of arguments.)
In cases where argument forwarding is not possible (for inalloca calls,
variadic calls, and calls with callee parameter cleanup), the shadow inheriting
constructor is not emitted and instead we directly emit the initialization code
into the caller of the inherited constructor.
Note that this new model is not perfectly compatible with the old model in some
corner cases. In particular:
* if B inherits a private constructor from A, and C uses that constructor to
construct a B, then we previously required that A befriends B and B
befriends C, but the new rules require A to befriend C directly, and
* if a derived class has its own constructors (and so its implicit default
constructor is suppressed), it may still inherit a default constructor from
a base class
llvm-svn: 274049
2016-06-29 03:03:57 +08:00
}
2019-01-22 00:25:08 +08:00
2019-04-26 09:51:08 +08:00
namespace dr1722 { // dr1722: 9
2019-01-22 00:25:08 +08:00
# if __cplusplus >= 201103L
void f ( ) {
const auto lambda = [ ] ( int x ) { return x + 1 ; } ;
// Without the DR applied, this static_assert would fail.
static_assert (
noexcept ( ( int ( * ) ( int ) ) ( lambda ) ) ,
" Lambda-to-function-pointer conversion is expected to be noexcept " ) ;
}
# endif
} // namespace dr1722
2019-05-06 13:04:56 +08:00
namespace dr1778 { // dr1778: 9
// Superseded by P1286R2.
# if __cplusplus >= 201103L
struct A { A ( ) noexcept ( true ) = default ; } ;
struct B { B ( ) noexcept ( false ) = default ; } ;
static_assert ( noexcept ( A ( ) ) , " " ) ;
static_assert ( ! noexcept ( B ( ) ) , " " ) ;
struct C { A a ; C ( ) noexcept ( false ) = default ; } ;
struct D { B b ; D ( ) noexcept ( true ) = default ; } ;
static_assert ( ! noexcept ( C ( ) ) , " " ) ;
static_assert ( noexcept ( D ( ) ) , " " ) ;
# endif
}
Write test for CWG1772/CWG1762/CWG1779, mark them 'done', and update
cxx_dr_status.html
I noticed that these two DRs are currently working correctly, so I
added a pair of lit tests that check the AST (which is most useful for
CWG1779, since 'dependent' is really only observable in an ast dump) to
make sure __func__ works correctly in dependent cases, and in lambda
operator().
Also noticed that CWG1762, mostly an 'example' change, works correctly,
so added a test so that it gets marked 'done' as well.
Additionally, I regenerated cxx_dr_status.html, updating it for Clang
13's release, based on the cwg_status.html from August 12, 2021.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109956
2021-09-24 23:31:26 +08:00
namespace dr1762 { // dr1762: 14
# if __cplusplus >= 201103L
float operator " " _E ( const char * ) ;
2021-09-25 01:24:17 +08:00
// expected-error@+2 {{invalid suffix on literal; C++11 requires a space between literal and identifier}}
Write test for CWG1772/CWG1762/CWG1779, mark them 'done', and update
cxx_dr_status.html
I noticed that these two DRs are currently working correctly, so I
added a pair of lit tests that check the AST (which is most useful for
CWG1779, since 'dependent' is really only observable in an ast dump) to
make sure __func__ works correctly in dependent cases, and in lambda
operator().
Also noticed that CWG1762, mostly an 'example' change, works correctly,
so added a test so that it gets marked 'done' as well.
Additionally, I regenerated cxx_dr_status.html, updating it for Clang
13's release, based on the cwg_status.html from August 12, 2021.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109956
2021-09-24 23:31:26 +08:00
// expected-warning@+1 {{user-defined literal suffixes not starting with '_' are reserved; no literal will invoke this operator}}
float operator " " E ( const char * ) ;
# endif
}