I went over the output of the following mess of a command:
(ulimit -m 2000000; ulimit -v 2000000; git ls-files -z |
parallel --xargs -0 cat | aspell list --mode=none --ignore-case |
grep -E '^[A-Za-z][a-z]*$' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n |
grep -vE '.{25}' | aspell pipe -W3 | grep : | cut -d' ' -f2 | less)
and proceeded to spend a few days looking at it to find probable typos
and fixed a few hundred of them in all of the llvm project (note, the
ones I found are not anywhere near all of them, but it seems like a
good start).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130827
DR2338 clarified that it was undefined behavior to set the value outside the
range of the enumerations values for an enum without a fixed underlying type.
We should diagnose this with a constant expression context.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130058
DR2338 clarified that it was undefined behavior to set the value outside the
range of the enumerations values for an enum without a fixed underlying type.
We should diagnose this with a constant expression context.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130058
Since clang15 is going to be branched in July 26, and C++ modules still
lack an update on ReleaseNotes. Although it is not complete yet, I think
it would be better to add one since we've done many works for C++20
Modules in clang15.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129138
This implements
N2836 Identifier Syntax using Unicode Standard Annex 31.
The feature was already implemented for C++,
and the semantics are the same.
Unlike C++ there was, afaict, no decision to
backport the feature in older languages mode,
so C17 and earlier are not modified and the
code point tables for these language modes are conserved.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130416
Those two DRs about the (copy) triviality of types with deleted special member functions are not implemented in Clang.
Document them as such.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129583
Update the references to the old Mailman mailing lists to point to Discourse forums.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128766
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
Gabriel Ravier