This mostly finishes the DRs for C89, though there are still a few
outliers which remain. It also corrects some of the statuses of DRs
where it's not clear if it was fully resolved by the committee or not.
As a drive-by, it also adds -fsyntax-only to the tests which are
verifying diagnostic results. This was previously missed by accident.
From [class.copy.ctor]:
```
A non-template constructor for class X is a copy constructor if its first
parameter is of type X&, const X&, volatile X& or const volatile X&, and
either there are no other parameters or else all other parameters have
default arguments (9.3.4.7).
A copy/move constructor for class X is trivial if it is not user-provided and if:
- class X has no virtual functions (11.7.3) and no virtual base classes (11.7.2), and
- the constructor selected to copy/move each direct base class subobject is trivial, and
- or each non-static data member of X that is of class type (or array thereof),
the constructor selected to copy/move that member is trivial;
otherwise the copy/move constructor is non-trivial.
```
So `T(T&) = default`; should be trivial assuming that the previous
provisions are met.
This works in GCC, but not in Clang at the moment:
https://godbolt.org/z/fTGe71b6P
Reviewed By: royjacobson
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127593
This adds new files to track DRs 100-199 and 400-499, but the file
contents are still a work in progress. It also updates the associated
status in the DR tracking page.
Const class members may be initialized with a defaulted default
constructor under the same conditions it would be allowed for a const
object elsewhere.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126170
This starts to fill out the C DR status page with information
determined from tests. It also starts to add some test coverage for the
DRs we can add tests for (some are difficult as not all C DRs involve
questions about code and some DRs are about the behavior of linking
multiple TUs together).
Note: there is currently no automation for filling out the HTML page
from test coverage like there is for the C++ DRs, but this commit
attempts to use a similar comment style in case we want to add such a
script in the future.
We currently have a page for tracking defects against the C++ standard,
but we don't have the same information for the C standard. This starts
us down the path of being able to track that in a way our users can see.
There are *a lot* of entries marked as "Unknown". As we validate
Clang's behavior for a given DR by adding a test case for it, we can
slowly begin to improve this page over time.
This page is now linked from the existing C status page, which was
updated slightly as a result of these changes as well.
Note, unlike with the C++ defect report page, this content is not auto-
generated from a source document and is not automatically updated from
test comments. It may be worthwhile to automate the updates based on
our test coverage, but that can happen later.
This reverts commit 69dd89fdcb.
This reverts commit 04000c2f92.
The current states breaks libstdc++ usage (https://reviews.llvm.org/D119136#3455423).
The fixup has been reverted as it caused other valid code to be disallowed.
I think we should start from the clean state by reverting all relevant commits.
WG14 has elected to remove support for K&R C functions in C2x. The
feature was introduced into C89 already deprecated, so after this long
of a deprecation period, the committee has made an empty parameter list
mean the same thing in C as it means in C++: the function accepts no
arguments exactly as if the function were written with (void) as the
parameter list.
This patch implements WG14 N2841 No function declarators without
prototypes (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2841.htm)
and WG14 N2432 Remove support for function definitions with identifier
lists (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2432.pdf).
It also adds The -fno-knr-functions command line option to opt into
this behavior in other language modes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123955
Implement P2036R3.
Captured variables by copy (explicitely or not), are deduced
correctly at the point we know whether the lambda is mutable,
and ill-formed before that.
Up until now, the entire lambda declaration up to the start of the body would be parsed in the parent scope, such that capture would not be available to look up.
The scoping is changed to have an outer lambda scope, followed by the lambda prototype and body.
The lambda scope is necessary because there may be a template scope between the start of the lambda (to which we want to attach the captured variable) and the prototype scope.
We also need to introduce a declaration context to attach the captured variable to (and several parts of clang assume captures are handled from the call operator context), before we know the type of the call operator.
The order of operations is as follow:
* Parse the init capture in the lambda's parent scope
* Introduce a lambda scope
* Create the lambda class and call operator
* Add the init captures to the call operator context and the lambda scope. But the variables are not capured yet (because we don't know their type).
Instead, explicit captures are stored in a temporary map that conserves the order of capture (for the purpose of having a stable order in the ast dumps).
* A flag is set on LambdaScopeInfo to indicate that we have not yet injected the captures.
* The parameters are parsed (in the parent context, as lambda mangling recurses in the parent context, we couldn't mangle a lambda that is attached to the context of a lambda whose type is not yet known).
* The lambda qualifiers are parsed, at this point We can switch (for the second time) inside the lambda context, unset the flag indicating that we have not parsed the lambda qualifiers,
record the lambda is mutable and capture the explicit variables.
* We can parse the rest of the lambda type, transform the lambda and call operator's types and also transform the call operator to a template function decl where necessary.
At this point, both captures and parameters can be injected in the body's scope. When trying to capture an implicit variable, if we are before the qualifiers of a lambda, we need to remember that the variables are still in the parent's context (rather than in the call operator's).
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, #clang-language-wg, ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119136
Implement P2036R3.
Captured variables by copy (explicitely or not), are deduced
correctly at the point we know whether the lambda is mutable,
and ill-formed before that.
Up until now, the entire lambda declaration up to the start
of the body would be parsed in the parent scope, such that
captures would not be available to look up.
The scoping is changed to have an outer lambda scope,
followed by the lambda prototype and body.
The lambda scope is necessary because there may be a template scope
between the start of the lambda (to which we want to attach
the captured variable) and the prototype scope.
We also need to introduce a declaration context to attach the captured
variable to (and several parts of clang assume captures are handled from
the call operator context), before we know the type of the call operator.
The order of operations is as follow:
* Parse the init capture in the lambda's parent scope
* Introduce a lambda scope
* Create the lambda class and call operator
* Add the init captures to the call operator context and the lambda scope.
But the variables are not capured yet (because we don't know their type).
Instead, explicit captures are stored in a temporary map that
conserves the order of capture (for the purpose of having a stable order in the ast dumps).
* A flag is set on LambdaScopeInfo to indicate that we have not yet injected the captures.
* The parameters are parsed (in the parent context, as lambda mangling recurses in the parent context,
we couldn't mangle a lambda that is attached to the context of a lambda whose type is not yet known).
* The lambda qualifiers are parsed, at this point,
we can switch (for the second time) inside the lambda context,
unset the flag indicating that we have not parsed the lambda qualifiers,
record the lambda is mutable and capture the explicit variables.
* We can parse the rest of the lambda type, transform the lambda and call operator's types and also
transform the call operator to a template function decl where necessary.
At this point, both captures and parameters can be injected in the body's scope.
When trying to capture an implicit variable, if we are before the qualifiers of a lambda,
we need to remember that the variables are still in the parent's context (rather than in the call operator's).
This is a recommit of adff142dc2 after a fix in d8d793f29b
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, #clang-language-wg, ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119136
This reverts commit adff142dc2.
This broke clang bootstrap: it made existing C++ code in LLVM invalid:
llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/LiveInterval.h:630:53: error: captured variable 'Idx' cannot appear here
[=](std::remove_reference_t<decltype(*Idx)> V,
^
Implement P2036R3.
Captured variables by copy (explicitely or not), are deduced
correctly at the point we know whether the lambda is mutable,
and ill-formed before that.
Up until now, the entire lambda declaration up to the start of the body would be parsed in the parent scope, such that capture would not be available to look up.
The scoping is changed to have an outer lambda scope, followed by the lambda prototype and body.
The lambda scope is necessary because there may be a template scope between the start of the lambda (to which we want to attach the captured variable) and the prototype scope.
We also need to introduce a declaration context to attach the captured variable to (and several parts of clang assume captures are handled from the call operator context), before we know the type of the call operator.
The order of operations is as follow:
* Parse the init capture in the lambda's parent scope
* Introduce a lambda scope
* Create the lambda class and call operator
* Add the init captures to the call operator context and the lambda scope. But the variables are not capured yet (because we don't know their type).
Instead, explicit captures are stored in a temporary map that conserves the order of capture (for the purpose of having a stable order in the ast dumps).
* A flag is set on LambdaScopeInfo to indicate that we have not yet injected the captures.
* The parameters are parsed (in the parent context, as lambda mangling recurses in the parent context, we couldn't mangle a lambda that is attached to the context of a lambda whose type is not yet known).
* The lambda qualifiers are parsed, at this point We can switch (for the second time) inside the lambda context, unset the flag indicating that we have not parsed the lambda qualifiers,
record the lambda is mutable and capture the explicit variables.
* We can parse the rest of the lambda type, transform the lambda and call operator's types and also transform the call operator to a template function decl where necessary.
At this point, both captures and parameters can be injected in the body's scope. When trying to capture an implicit variable, if we are before the qualifiers of a lambda, we need to remember that the variables are still in the parent's context (rather than in the call operator's).
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, #clang-language-wg, ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119136
According to CWG 1394 and C++20 [dcl.fct.def.general]p2,
Clang should not diagnose incomplete types if function body is "= delete;".
For example:
```
struct Incomplete;
Incomplete f(Incomplete) = delete; // well-formed
```
Also close https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/52802
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122981
Allow goto, labelled statements as well as `static`, `thread_local`, and
non-literal variables in `constexpr` functions.
As specified. for all of the above (except labelled statements) constant
evaluation of the construct still fails.
For `constexpr` bodies, the proposal is implemented with diagnostics as
a language extension in older language modes. For determination of
whether a lambda body satisfies the requirements for a constexpr
function, the proposal is implemented only in C++2b mode to retain the
semantics of older modes for programs conforming to them.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, hubert.reinterpretcast, erichkeane
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111400
- We should report bugs to the GitHub Issues
- We should advocate using Discourse instead of the superseded cfe-dev
mailing list.
There are a couple of other cosmetic changes such as preferring `using`
instead of `typedef` and quoting the `-analyze-function` parameter's
payload for escaping the braces.
Thanks @loic-joly-sonarsource for reporting this on Discord!
Reviewed By: NoQ, Szelethus
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119245
Implement P2128R6 in C++23 mode.
Unlike GCC's implementation, this doesn't try to recover when a user
meant to use a comma expression.
Because the syntax changes meaning in C++23, the patch is *NOT*
implemented as an extension. Instead, declaring an array with not
exactly 1 parameter is an error in older languages modes. There is an
off-by-default extension warning in C++23 mode.
Unlike the standard, we supports default arguments;
Ie, we assume, based on conversations in WG21, that the proposed
resolution to CWG2507 will be accepted.
We allow arrays OpenMP sections and C++23 multidimensional array to
coexist:
[a , b] multi dimensional array
[a : b] open mp section
[a, b: c] // error
The rest of the patch is relatively straight forward: we take care to
support an arbitrary number of arguments everywhere.
This completes the implementation of
WG14 N2412 (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2412.pdf),
which standardizes C on a twos complement representation for integer
types. The only work that remained there was to define the correct
macros in the standard headers, which this patch does.
Although we moved to Github Issues. The bug report message refers to
Bugzilla still. This patch tries to update these URLs.
Reviewed By: MaskRay, Quuxplusone, jhenderson, libunwind, libc++
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116351
This implements p2085, allowing out-of-class defaulting of comparison
operators, primarily so they need not be inline, IIUC intent. this was
mostly straigh forward, but required reimplementing
Sema::CheckExplicitlyDefaultedComparison, as now there's a case where
we have no a priori clue as to what class a defaulted comparison may
be for. We have to inspect the parameter types to find out. Eg:
class X { ... };
bool operator==(X, X) = default;
Thus reimplemented the parameter type checking, and added 'is this a
friend' functionality for the above case.
Reviewed By: mizvekov
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104478
This helps user to know what level of support there
is (roughly) for coroutine feature.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115778
Aaron Ballman