This follows the scheme agreed with Nathan Sidwell, which can be found here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-modules?action=AttachFile
This will be proposed to the itanium-cxx-abi list once we have some experience
with how well it works; the ABI for this TS should be considered unstable until
it is part of the Itanium C++ ABI.
llvm-svn: 312467
Extend the -fmodule-file option to support the [<name>=]<file> value format.
If the name is omitted, then the old semantics is preserved (the module file
is loaded whether needed or not). If the name is specified, then the mapping
is treated as just another prebuilt module search mechanism, similar to
-fprebuilt-module-path, and the module file is only loaded if actually used
(e.g., via import). With one exception: this mapping also overrides module
file references embedded in other modules (which can be useful if module files
are moved/renamed as often happens during remote compilation).
This override semantics requires some extra work: we now store the module name
in addition to the file name in the serialized AST representation.
Reviewed By: rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35020
llvm-svn: 312220
Extend the -fmodule-file option to support the [<name>=]<file> value format.
If the name is omitted, then the old semantics is preserved (the module file
is loaded whether needed or not). If the name is specified, then the mapping
is treated as just another prebuilt module search mechanism, similar to
-fprebuilt-module-path, and the module file is only loaded if actually used
(e.g., via import). With one exception: this mapping also overrides module
file references embedded in other modules (which can be useful if module files
are moved/renamed as often happens during remote compilation).
This override semantics requires some extra work: we now store the module name
in addition to the file name in the serialized AST representation.
Reviewed By: rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35020
llvm-svn: 312105
If a TS module name has more than one component (e.g., foo.bar) then we
erroneously activated the submodule semantics when encountering a module
declaration in the module implementation unit (e.g., 'module foo.bar;').
Reviewed By: rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35678
llvm-svn: 312007
Prior to this patch clang would not error here:
template <class T> struct B;
template <class T> struct A {
void foo();
void foo2();
void test1() {
B<T>::foo(); // OK, foo is declared in A<int> - matches type of 'this'.
B<T>::foo2(); // This should be an error!
// foo2 is found in B<int>, 'base unrelated' to 'this'.
}
};
template <class T> struct B : A<T> {
using A<T>::foo2;
};
llvm-svn: 311851
This patch, by hamzasood, implements P0409R2, and allows [=, this] pre-C++2a as an extension (with appropriate warnings) for consistency.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36572
Thanks Hamza!
llvm-svn: 311224
In addition to the formal linkage rules, the Modules TS includes cases where
internal-linkage symbols within a module interface unit can be referenced from
outside the module via exported inline functions / templates. We give such
declarations "module-internal linkage", which is formally internal linkage, but
results in an externally-visible symbol.
llvm-svn: 307434
These cases occur frequently for declarations in the global module (above the
module-declaration) in a Modules TS module interface. When we merge a
definition from another module into such a module-private definition, ensure
that we transitively make everything lexically within that definition visible
to that translation unit.
llvm-svn: 307129
(possible implicit) noexcept specifier
Throwing in the destructor is not good (C++11 change try to not allow see below).
But in reality, those codes are exist.
C++11 [class.dtor]p3:
A declaration of a destructor that does not have an exception-specification is
implicitly considered to have the same exception specification as an implicit
declaration.
With this change, the application worked before may now run into runtime
termination. My goal here is to emit a warning to provide only possible info to
where the code may need to be changed.
First there is no way, in compile time to identify the “throw” really throw out
of the function. Things like the call which throw out… To keep this simple,
when “throw” is seen, checking its enclosing function(only destructor and
dealloc functions) with noexcept(true) specifier emit warning.
Here is implementation detail:
A new member function CheckCXXThrowInNonThrowingFunc is added for class Sema
in Sema.h. It is used in the call to both BuildCXXThrow and
TransformCXXThrowExpr.
The function basic check if the enclosing function with non-throwing noexcept
specifer, if so emit warning for it.
The example of warning message like:
k1.cpp:18:3: warning: ''~dependent_warn'' has a (possible implicit) non-throwing
noexcept specifier. Throwing exception may cause termination.
[-Wthrow-in-dtor]
throw 1;
^
k1.cpp:43:30: note: in instantiation of member function
'dependent_warn<noexcept_fun>::~dependent_warn' requested here
dependent_warn<noexcept_fun> f; // cause warning
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33333
llvm-svn: 306149
A function declared in a friend declaration may have declarations prior
to the containing class definition. If such declaration defines default
argument, the friend function declaration inherits them. This behavior
causes problems if the class where the friend is declared is a template:
during the class instantiation the friend function looks like if it had
default arguments, so error is triggered.
With this change friend functions declared in class templates do not
inherit default arguments. Actual set of them will be defined at the
point where the containing class is instantiated.
This change fixes PR12724.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30393
llvm-svn: 304965
Clang makes check for function redefinition after it merged the new
declaration with the existing one. As a result, it produces poor
diagnostics in the case of a friend function defined inline, as in
the code:
```
void func() {}
class C { friend void func() {} };
```
Error message in this case states that `inline declaration of 'func'
follows non-inline definition`, which is misleading, as `func` does
not have explicit `inline` specifier.
With this changes compiler reports function redefinition if the new
function is a friend defined inline and it does not have explicit
`inline` specifier.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26065
llvm-svn: 304964
This is not required by the standard (yet), but there seems to be reasonable
support for this being a defect according to CWG discussion, and libstdc++ 7.1
relies on it working.
llvm-svn: 304946
member function" context notes to registering an entry on the context stack.
Also reorder the steps within defining special members to be consistent.
This has a few benefits: if multiple diagnostics are produced while checking
such a member, the note is now attached to the first such diagnostic rather
than the last, this prepares us for persisting these diagnostics between the
point at which we require the implicit instantiation of a template and the
point at which that instantiation is actually performed, and this fixes some
cases where we would fail to produce a full note stack leading back to user
code in the case of such a diagnostic.
The reordering exposed a case where we could recursively attempt to define a
defaulted destructor while we're already defining one (and other such cases
also appear to be possible, with or without this change), so this change also
reuses the "willHaveBody" flag on function declarations to track that we're in
the middle of synthesizing a body for the function and bails out if we try to
define a function that we're already defining.
llvm-svn: 303930
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
Summary:
3.4.6 [basic.lookup.udir] paragraph 1:
In a using-directive or namespace-alias-definition, during the lookup for a namespace-name or for a name in a nested-name-specifier, only namespace names are considered.
Reviewers: rsmith, aaron.ballman
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30848
llvm-svn: 298126
Printing typedefs or type aliases using clang_getTypeSpelling() is missing the
namespace they are defined in. This is in contrast to other types that always
yield the full typename including namespaces.
Patch by Michael Reiher!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29944
llvm-svn: 297465
Essentially, as a base class constructor does not construct virtual bases, such
a constructor for an abstract class does not need the corresponding base class
construction to be valid, and likewise for destructors.
This creates an awkward situation: clang will sometimes generate references to
the complete object and deleting destructors for an abstract class (it puts
them in the construction vtable for a derived class). But we can't generate a
"correct" version of these because we can't generate references to base class
constructors any more (if they're template specializations, say, we might not
have instantiated them and can't assume any other TU will emit a copy).
Fortunately, we don't need to, since no correct program can ever invoke them,
so instead emit symbols that just trap.
We should stop emitting references to these symbols, but still need to emit
definitions for compatibility.
llvm-svn: 296275
Rather than attempting to compare whether the previous and current top of
context stack are "equal" (which fails for a number of reasons, such as the
context stack entries containing pointers to objects on the stack, or reaching
the same "top of stack" entry through two different paths), track the depth of
context stack at which we last emitted a note and invalidate it when we pop the
context stack to less than that depth.
This causes us to emit some missing "in instantiation of" notes and to stop
emitting redundant "in instantiation of" stacks matching the previous stack in
rare cases.
llvm-svn: 295921
This appears to be the only template argument deduction context where we were
missing this check. Surprisingly, other implementations also appear to miss
the check in this case; it may turn out that important code is relying on
the widespread non-conformance here, in which case we'll need to reconsider.
llvm-svn: 295277
After r264564, we allowed direct-list-initialization of an enum from an
integral value in C++1z mode, so long as that value can convert to the
enum's underlying type.
In this kind of initialization, we need a lvalue-to-rvalue conversion
for the initializer value if it is not a rvalue. This lets us accept the
following code:
enum class A : unsigned {};
A foo(unsigned x) { return A{x}; }
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29723
llvm-svn: 295266
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
It's actually meaningful and useful to allow such variables to have no
initializer, but we are strictly following the standard here until the C++
committee reaches consensus on allowing this.
llvm-svn: 294785
Summary:
This adds associated constraints as a property of class templates.
An error is produced if redeclarations are not similarly constrained.
Reviewers: rsmith, faisalv, aaron.ballman
Reviewed By: rsmith
Subscribers: cfe-commits, nwilson
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25674
llvm-svn: 294697
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
Richard Smith