In order to identify the copy deduction candidate, I considered two approaches:
- attempt to determine whether an implicit guide is a copy deduction candidate by checking certain properties of its subsituted parameter during overload-resolution.
- using one of the many bits (WillHaveBody) from FunctionDecl (that CXXDeductionGuideDecl inherits from) that are otherwise irrelevant for deduction guides
After some brittle gymnastics w the first strategy, I settled on the second, although to avoid confusion and to give that bit a better name, i turned it into a member of an anonymous union.
Given this identification 'bit', the tweak to overload resolution was a simple reordering of the deduction guide checks (in SemaOverload.cpp::isBetterOverloadCandidate), in-line with Jason Merrill's p0620r0 drafting which made it into the working paper. Concordant with that, I made sure the copy deduction candidate is always added.
References:
See https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34970
See http://wg21.link/p0620r0
llvm-svn: 316292
instantiation declarations if they are usable from constant expressions.
We are permitted to instantiate in these cases, and required to do so in order
to have an initializer available for use within constant evaluation.
llvm-svn: 316136
When declaring an entity in the "purview" of a module, it's never a
redeclaration of an entity in the purview of a default module or in no module
("in the global module"). Don't consider those other declarations as possible
redeclaration targets if they're not visible, and reject any cases where we
pick a prior visible declaration that violates this rule.
This reinstates r315251 and r315256, reverted in r315309 and r315308
respectively, tweaked to avoid triggering a linkage calculation when declaring
implicit special members (this exposed our pre-existing issue with typedef
names for linkage changing the linkage of types whose linkage has already been
computed and cached in more cases). A testcase for that regression has been
added in r315366.
llvm-svn: 315379
When declaring an entity in the "purview" of a module, it's never a
redeclaration of an entity in the purview of a default module or in no module
("in the global module"). Don't consider those other declarations as possible
redeclaration targets if they're not visible, and reject any cases where we
pick a prior visible declaration that violates this rule.
llvm-svn: 315251
This implements the proposed approach in https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/33
This reinstates r313827, reverted in r313856, with a fix for the 'out-of-bounds
enumeration value' ubsan error in that change.
llvm-svn: 313955
move constructor.
Previously user-defined reduction initializer was considered as an
assignment expression, not as initializer. Fixed this by treating the
initializer expression as an initializer.
llvm-svn: 312638
the class becoming complete and its inline methods being parsed.
This replaces the hack of using the "late parsed template" flag to track member
functions with bodies we've not parsed yet; instead we now use the "will have
body" flag, which carries the desired implication that the function declaration
*is* a definition, and that we've just not parsed its body yet.
llvm-svn: 310776
declarations that are owned but unconditionally visible.
This allows us to set declarations as visible even if they have a local owning
module, without losing information. In turn, that means that our Objective-C
support can keep on incorrectly assuming the "hidden" bit on the declaration is
the whole story with regard to name visibility. This will also be useful once
we support the C++ Modules TS export semantics.
Objective-C name visibility is still incorrect in any case where the "hidden"
bit is not the complete story: for instance, in Objective-C++ the set of
visible categories will be wrong during template instantiation, and with local
submodule visibility enabled it will be wrong when building modules. Fixing that
will require a major overhaul of how visibility is handled for Objective-C (and
particularly for categories).
llvm-svn: 306075
While a function body is being parsed, the function declaration is not considered
as a definition because it does not have a body yet. In some cases it leads to
incorrect interpretation, the case is presented in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14785:
```
template<typename T> struct Somewhat {
void internal() const {}
friend void operator+(int const &, Somewhat<T> const &) {}
};
void operator+(int const &, Somewhat<char> const &x) { x.internal(); }
```
When statement `x.internal()` in the body of global `operator+` is parsed, the type
of `x` must be completed, so the instantiation of `Somewhat<char>` is started. It
instantiates the declaration of `operator+` defined inline, and makes a check for
redefinition. The check does not detect another definition because the declaration
of `operator+` is still not defining as does not have a body yet.
To solves this problem the function `isThisDeclarationADefinition` considers
a function declaration as a definition if it has flag `WillHaveBody` set.
This change fixes PR14785.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30375
This is a recommit of 305379, reverted in 305381, with small changes.
llvm-svn: 305903
While a function body is being parsed, the function declaration is not considered
as a definition because it does not have a body yet. In some cases it leads to
incorrect interpretation, the case is presented in
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14785:
```
template<typename T> struct Somewhat {
void internal() const {}
friend void operator+(int const &, Somewhat<T> const &) {}
};
void operator+(int const &, Somewhat<char> const &x) { x.internal(); }
```
When statement `x.internal()` in the body of global `operator+` is parsed, the type
of `x` must be completed, so the instantiation of `Somewhat<char>` is started. It
instantiates the declaration of `operator+` defined inline, and makes a check for
redefinition. The check does not detect another definition because the declaration
of `operator+` is still not defining as does not have a body yet.
To solves this problem the function `isThisDeclarationADefinition` considers
a function declaration as a definition if it has flag `WillHaveBody` set.
This change fixes PR14785.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30375
llvm-svn: 305379
RecursiveASTVisitor was not properly recursing through a
SubstTemplateTypeParmTypes, resulting in crashes in pack expansion where we
couldn't always find an unexpanded pack within a pack expansion.
We also have an issue where substitution of deduced template arguments for an
implicit deduction guide creates the "impossible" case of naming a
non-dependent member of the current instantiation, but within a specialization
that is actually instantiated from a different (partial/explicit)
specialization of the template. We resolve this by declaring that constructors
that do so can only be used to deduce specializations of the primary template.
I'm running this past CWG to see if people agree this is the right thing to do.
llvm-svn: 304862
This fixes the bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32638
int main()
{
[](auto x) noexcept(noexcept(x)) { } (0);
}
In the above code, prior to this patch, when substituting into the noexcept expression, i.e. transforming the DeclRefExpr that represents 'x' - clang attempts to capture 'x' because Sema's CurContext is still pointing to the pattern FunctionDecl (i.e. the templated-decl set in FinishTemplateArgumentDeduction) which does not match the substituted 'x's DeclContext, which leads to an attempt to capture and an assertion failure.
We fix this by adjusting Sema's CurContext to point to the substituted FunctionDecl under which the noexcept specifier's argument should be transformed, and so the ParmVarDecl that 'x' refers to has the same declcontext and no capture is attempted.
I briefly investigated whether the SwitchContext should occur right after VisitMethodDecl creates the new substituted FunctionDecl, instead of only during instantiating the exception specification - but seeing no other code that seemed to rely on that, I decided to leave it just for the duration of the exception specification instantiation.
llvm-svn: 302507
- also replace direct equality checks against the ConstantEvaluated enumerator with isConstantEvaluted(), in anticipation of adding finer granularity to the various ConstantEvaluated contexts and reinstating certain restrictions on where lambda expressions can occur in C++17.
- update the clang tablegen backend that uses these Enumerators, and add the relevant scope where needed.
llvm-svn: 299316
GCC has the alloc_align attribute, which is similar to assume_aligned, except the attribute's parameter is the index of the integer parameter that needs aligning to.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29599
llvm-svn: 299117
Correct class-template deprecation behavior
Based on the comment in the test, and my reading of the standard, a deprecated warning should be issued in the following case:
template<typename T> [[deprecated]] class Foo{}; Foo<int> f;
This was not the case, because the ClassTemplateSpecializationDecl creation did not also copy the deprecated attribute.
Note: I did NOT audit the complete set of attributes to see WHICH ones should be copied, so instead I simply copy ONLY the deprecated attribute.
Previous DiffRev: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27486, was reverted.
This patch fixes the issues brought up here by the reverter: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL298410
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31245
llvm-svn: 298634
Based on the comment in the test, and my reading of the standard, a deprecated warning should be issued in the following case:
template<typename T> [[deprecated]] class Foo{}; Foo<int> f;
This was not the case, because the ClassTemplateSpecializationDecl creation did not also copy the deprecated attribute.
Note: I did NOT audit the complete set of attributes to see WHICH ones should be copied, so instead I simply copy ONLY the deprecated attribute.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27486
llvm-svn: 298410
case where the class template has a parameter pack.
Checking of the template arguments expects an "as-written" template argument
list, which in particular does not have any parameter packs. So flatten the
packs into separate arguments before passing them in.
llvm-svn: 295710
template deduction guides for class template argument deduction.
Ensure that we have a local instantiation scope for tracking the instantiated
parameters. Additionally, unusually, we're substituting at depth 1 and leaving
depth 0 alone; make sure that we don't reduce template parameter depth by 2 for
inner parameters in the process. (This is probably also broken for alias
templates in the case where they're expanded within a dependent context, but
this patch doesn't fix that.)
llvm-svn: 295696
Summary: Previously the cleanups (e.g. dtor calls) are inserted into the
outer scope (e.g. function body scope), instead of it's own scope. After
the fix, the cleanups are inserted right after getting the size value.
This fixes pr30306.
Reviewers: rsmith
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24333
llvm-svn: 295123
such guides below explicit ones, and ensure that references to the class's
template parameters are not treated as forwarding references.
We make a few tweaks to the wording in the current standard:
1) The constructor parameter list is copied faithfully to the deduction guide,
without losing default arguments or a varargs ellipsis (which the standard
wording loses by omission).
2) If the class template declares no constructors, we add a T() -> T<...> guide
(which will only ever work if T has default arguments for all non-pack
template parameters).
3) If the class template declares nothing that looks like a copy or move
constructor, we add a T(T<...>) -> T<...> guide.
#2 and #3 follow from the "pretend we had a class type with these constructors"
philosophy for deduction guides.
llvm-svn: 295007
FindInstantiatedDecl or passing it to RebuildMemberExpr.
This fixes PR30361.
rdar://problem/17341274
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24969
llvm-svn: 293678
non-template function instantiated from a friend declaration in a class
template from TSK_ImplicitInstantiation to TSK_Undeclared.
It doesn't make sense for a non-template function to be flagged as being
instantiated from a template; that property really belongs to the entity
as a whole and not an individual declaration of it. There's some history
here:
* r137934 started marking these functions as instantiations in order to
work around an issue where we might instantiate a class template while
we're still parsing its member definitions, and would otherwise fail
to instantiate the friend definition
* r177003 fixed the same issue but for friend templates, but did so by
making the friends claim to be definitions even before we'd parsed
their actual bodies; this made the r137934 change redundant
* r293558 worked around a problem caused by the marking of a non-template
function as a template instantiation in r137934
This change reverts the code changes from r293358 and r137934 and retains
all the tests.
llvm-svn: 293367
Fixes a crash in modules where the template class decl becomes the most recent
decl in the redeclaration chain and forcing the template instantiator try to
instantiate the friend declaration, rather than the template definition.
In practice, A::list<int> produces a TemplateSpecializationType
A::__1::list<int, allocator<type-parameter-0-0> >' failing to replace to
subsitute the default argument to allocator<int>.
Kudos Richard Smith (D28399).
llvm-svn: 291753
This flag serves no purpose other than to prevent us walking through a type to
check whether it contains an 'auto' specifier; this duplication of information
is error-prone, does not appear to provide any performance benefit, and will
become less practical once we support C++1z deduced class template types and
eventually constrained types from the Concepts TS.
No functionality change intended.
llvm-svn: 291737
`diagnose_if` can be used to have clang emit either warnings or errors
for function calls that meet user-specified conditions. For example:
```
constexpr int foo(int a)
__attribute__((diagnose_if(a > 10, "configurations with a > 10 are "
"expensive.", "warning")));
int f1 = foo(9);
int f2 = foo(10); // warning: configuration with a > 10 are expensive.
int f3 = foo(f2);
```
It currently only emits diagnostics in cases where the condition is
guaranteed to always be true. So, the following code will emit no
warnings:
```
constexpr int bar(int a) {
foo(a);
return 0;
}
constexpr int i = bar(10);
```
We hope to support optionally emitting diagnostics for cases like that
(and emitting runtime checks) in the future.
Release notes will appear shortly. :)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27424
llvm-svn: 291418
Summary:
Replace some old code that probably pre-dated the change to delay
emission of dllexported code until after the closing brace of the
outermost record type. Only uninstantiated default argument expressions
need to be handled now. It is enough to instantiate default argument
expressions when instantiating dllexported default ctors. This also
fixes some double-diagnostic issues in this area.
Fixes PR31500
Reviewers: rsmith
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28274
llvm-svn: 291045
Richard Smith