During template instantiation involving templated lambdas, clang
could hit an assertion in `TemplateDeclInstantiator::SubstFunctionType`
since the functions are not associated with any `TypeSourceInfo`:
`assert(OldTInfo && "substituting function without type source info");`
This path is triggered when using templated lambdas like the one added as
a test to this patch. To fix this:
- Create `TypeSourceInfo`s for special members and make sure the template
instantiator can get through all patterns.
- Introduce a `SpecialMemberTypeInfoRebuilder` tree transform to rewrite
such member function arguments. Without this, we get errors like:
`error: only special member functions and comparison operators may be defaulted`
since `getDefaultedFunctionKind` can't properly recognize these functions
as special members as part of `SetDeclDefaulted`.
Fixes PR45828 and PR44848
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88327
Fixes bug 50263
When "unused-private-field" flag is on if you have a struct with private
members and only defaulted comparison operators clang will warn about
unused private fields.
If you where to write the comparison operators by hand no warning is
produced.
This is a bug since defaulting a comparison operator uses all private
members .
The fix is simple, in CheckExplicitlyDefaultedFunction just clear the
list of unused private fields if the defaulted function is a comparison
function.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102186
A lambda in a function template may be recursively instantiated. The recursive
lambda will cause a lambda function instantiated multiple times, one inside another.
The inner LocalInstantiationScope should not be marked as MergeWithParentScope
since it already has references to locals properly substituted, otherwise it causes
assertion due to the check for duplicate locals in merged LocalInstantiationScope.
Reviewed by: Richard Smith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98068
This change caused build errors related to move-only __block variables,
see discussion on https://reviews.llvm.org/D99696
> This expands NRVO propagation for more cases:
>
> Parse analysis improvement:
> * Lambdas and Blocks with dependent return type can have their variables
> marked as NRVO Candidates.
>
> Variable instantiation improvements:
> * Fixes crash when instantiating NRVO variables in Blocks.
> * Functions, Lambdas, and Blocks which have auto return type have their
> variables' NRVO status propagated. For Blocks with non-auto return type,
> as a limitation, this propagation does not consider the actual return
> type.
>
> This also implements exclusion of VarDecls which are references to
> dependent types.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov@gmail.com>
>
> Reviewed By: Quuxplusone
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99696
This also reverts the follow-on change which was hard to tease apart
form the one above:
> "[clang] Implement P2266 Simpler implicit move"
>
> This Implements [[http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p2266r1.html|P2266 Simpler implicit move]].
>
> Signed-off-by: Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov@gmail.com>
>
> Reviewed By: Quuxplusone
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99005
This reverts commits 1e50c3d785 and
bf20631782.
At least LibreOffice has, for mainly historic reasons that would be hard to
change now, a class Any with an overloaded operator >>= that semantically does
not assign to the LHS but rather extracts into the (by-reference) RHS. Which
thus caused false positive -Wunused-but-set-parameter and
-Wunused-but-set-variable after those have been introduced recently.
This change is more conservative about the assumed semantics of overloaded
operators, excluding compound assignment operators but keeping plain operator =
ones. At least for LibreOffice, that strikes a good balance of not producing
false positives but still finding lots of true ones.
(The change to the BinaryOperator case in MaybeDecrementCount is necessary
because e.g. the template f4 test code in warn-unused-but-set-variables-cpp.cpp
turns the += into a BinaryOperator.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103949
Check applied to unbounded (incomplete) arrays and pointers to spot
cases where the computed address is beyond the largest possible
addressable extent of the array, based on the address space in which the
array is delcared, or which the pointer refers to.
Check helps to avoid cases of nonsense pointer math and array indexing
which could lead to linker failures or runtime exceptions. Of
particular interest when building for embedded systems with small
address spaces.
This is version 2 of this patch -- version 1 had some testing issues
due to a sign error in existing code. That error is corrected and
lit test for this chagne is extended to verify the fix.
Originally reviewed/accepted by: aaron.ballman
Original revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86796
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, ebevhan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88174
Check applied to unbounded (incomplete) arrays and pointers to spot
cases where the computed address is beyond the largest possible
addressable extent of the array, based on the address space in which the
array is delcared, or which the pointer refers to.
Check helps to avoid cases of nonsense pointer math and array indexing
which could lead to linker failures or runtime exceptions. Of
particular interest when building for embedded systems with small
address spaces.
This is version 2 of this patch -- version 1 had some testing issues
due to a sign error in existing code. That error is corrected and
lit test for this chagne is extended to verify the fix.
Originally reviewed/accepted by: aaron.ballman
Original revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86796
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, ebevhan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88174
Clang checks whether the type given to va_arg will automatically cause
undefined behavior, but this check was issuing false positives for
enumerations in C++. The issue turned out to be because
typesAreCompatible() in C++ checks whether the types are *the same*, so
this uses custom logic if the type compatibility check fails.
This issue was found by a user on code like:
typedef enum {
CURLINFO_NONE,
CURLINFO_EFFECTIVE_URL,
CURLINFO_LASTONE = 60
} CURLINFO;
...
__builtin_va_arg(list, CURLINFO); // false positive warning
Given that C++ defers to C for the rules around va_arg, the behavior
should be the same in both C and C++ and not diagnose because int and
CURLINFO are "compatible enough" types for va_arg.
This implements the 'using enum maybe-qualified-enum-tag ;' part of
1099. It introduces a new 'UsingEnumDecl', subclassed from
'BaseUsingDecl'. Much of the diff is the boilerplate needed to get the
new class set up.
There is one case where we accept ill-formed, but I believe this is
merely an extended case of an existing bug, so consider it
orthogonal. AFAICT in class-scope the c++20 rule is that no 2 using
decls can bring in the same target decl ([namespace.udecl]/8). But we
already accept:
struct A { enum { a }; };
struct B : A { using A::a; };
struct C : B { using A::a;
using B::a; }; // same enumerator
this patch permits mixtures of 'using enum Bob;' and 'using Bob::member;' in the same way.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102241
This adds support for p1099's 'using SCOPED_ENUM::MEMBER;'
functionality, bringing a member of an enumerator into the current
scope. The novel feature here, is that there need not be a class
hierarchical relationship between the current scope and the scope of
the SCOPED_ENUM. That's a new thing, the closest equivalent is a
typedef or alias declaration. But this means that
Sema::CheckUsingDeclQualifier needs adjustment. (a) one can't call it
until one knows the set of decls that are being referenced -- if
exactly one is an enumerator, we're in the new territory. Thus it
needs calling later in some cases. Also (b) there are two ways we hold
the set of such decls. During parsing (or instantiating a dependent
scope) we have a lookup result, and during instantiation we have a set
of shadow decls. Thus two optional arguments, at most one of which
should be non-null.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100276
The following was found by a customer and is accepted by the other primary
C++ compilers, but fails to compile in Clang:
namespace sss {
double foo(int, double);
template <class T>
T foo(T); // note: target of using declaration
} // namespace sss
namespace oad {
void foo();
}
namespace oad {
using ::sss::foo;
}
namespace sss {
using oad::foo; // note: using declaration
}
namespace sss {
double foo(int, double) { return 0; }
template <class T>
T foo(T t) { // error: declaration conflicts with target of using
return t;
}
} // namespace sss
I believe the issue is that MergeFunctionDecl() was calling
checkUsingShadowRedecl() but only considering a FunctionDecl as a
possible shadow and not FunctionTemplateDecl. The changes in this patch
largely mirror how variable declarations were being handled by also
catching FunctionTemplateDecl.
This attribute applies to a using declaration, and permits importing a
declaration without knowing if that declaration exists. This is useful
for libc++ C wrapper headers that re-export declarations in std::, in
cases where the base C library doesn't provide all declarations.
This attribute was proposed in http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2020-June/066038.html.
rdar://69313357
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90188
This addresses pr50497. The argument of a typeid expression is
unevaluated, *except* when it's a polymorphic type. We handle this by
parsing as unevaluated and then transforming to evaluated if we
discover it should have been an evaluated context.
We do the same in TreeTransform<Derived>::TransformCXXTypeidExpr,
entering unevaluated context before transforming and rebuilding the
typeid. But that's incorrect and can lead us to converting to
evaluated context twice -- and hitting an assert.
During normal template instantiation we're always cloning the
expression, but during generic lambda processing we do not necessarily
AlwaysRebuild, and end up with TransformDeclRefExpr unconditionally
calling MarkDeclRefReferenced around line 10226. That triggers the
assert.
// Mark it referenced in the new context regardless.
// FIXME: this is a bit instantiation-specific.
SemaRef.MarkDeclRefReferenced(E);
This patch makes 2 changes.
a) TreeTransform<Derived>::TransformCXXTypeidExpr only enters
unevaluated context if the typeid's operand is not a polymorphic
glvalue. If it is, it keeps the same evaluation context.
b) Sema::BuildCXXTypeId is altered to only transform to evaluated, if
the current context is unevaluated.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103258
This is a re-application of dc67299 which was reverted in f63adf5b because
it broke the build. The issue should now be fixed.
Attribution note: The original author of this patch is Erik Pilkington.
I'm only trying to land it after rebasing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91630
At the moment, the matrix support in CheckCXXCStyleCast (added in
D101696) breaks function-style constructor calls that take a
single matrix value, because it is treated as matrix cast.
Instead, unify the C++ matrix cast handling by moving the logic to
TryStaticCast and only handle the case where both types are matrix
types. Otherwise, fall back to the generic mis-match detection.
Suggested by @rjmccall
Reviewed By: SaurabhJha
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103163
Similar to how we allow managed and asserted locks to be held and not
held in joining branches, we also allow them to be held shared and
exclusive. The scoped lock should restore the original state at the end
of the scope in any event, and asserted locks need not be released.
We should probably only allow asserted locks to be subsumed by managed,
not by (directly) acquired locks, but that's for another change.
Reviewed By: delesley
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102026
We might encounter an undeduced type before calling getTypeAlignInChars.
NOTE: this retrieves the fix from
8f80c66bd2, which was removed in Adam's
followup fix fbfcfdbf68. We originally
thought the crash was caused by recovery-ast, but it turns out it can
occur for other cases, e.g. typo-correction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102750
Non-comprehensive list of cases:
* Dumping template arguments;
* Corresponding parameter contains a deduced type;
* Template arguments are for a DeclRefExpr that hadMultipleCandidates()
Type information is added in the form of prefixes (u8, u, U, L),
suffixes (U, L, UL, LL, ULL) or explicit casts to printed integral template
argument, if MSVC codeview mode is disabled.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77598
We weren't modifying the lock set when intersecting with one coming
from a break-terminated block. This is inconsistent, since break isn't a
back edge, and it leads to false negatives with scoped locks. We usually
don't warn for those when joining locksets aren't the same, we just
silently remove locks that are not in the intersection. But not warning
and not removing them isn't right.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101202
There already was a check for undeduced and incomplete types, but it
failed to trigger when outer type (SubstTemplateTypeParm in test) looked
fine, but inner type was not.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100667
These are intended to mimic warnings available in gcc.
-Wunused-but-set-variable is triggered in the case of a variable which
appears on the LHS of an assignment but not otherwise used.
For instance:
void f() {
int x;
x = 0;
}
-Wunused-but-set-parameter works similarly, but for function parameters
instead of variables.
In C++, they are triggered only for scalar types; otherwise, they are
triggered for all types. This is gcc's behavior.
-Wunused-but-set-parameter is controlled by -Wextra, while
-Wunused-but-set-variable is controlled by -Wunused. This is slightly
different from gcc's behavior, but seems most consistent with clang's
behavior for -Wunused-parameter and -Wunused-variable.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100581
There was a missing isInvalid() check leading to an attempt to
instantiate template with an empty instantiation stack.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100675
The comment here was introduced in
a3e01cf822 and suggests that we should
handle declaration statements and non-declaration statements the same,
but don't because ProhibitAttributes() can't handle GNU attributes. That
has recently changed, so remove the comment and handle all statements
the same.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99936
This is a Clang-only change and depends on the existing "musttail"
support already implemented in LLVM.
The [[clang::musttail]] attribute goes on a return statement, not
a function definition. There are several constraints that the user
must follow when using [[clang::musttail]], and these constraints
are verified by Sema.
Tail calls are supported on regular function calls, calls through a
function pointer, member function calls, and even pointer to member.
Future work would be to throw a warning if a users tries to pass
a pointer or reference to a local variable through a musttail call.
Reviewed By: rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99517
ICC permits this, and after some extensive testing it looks like we can
support this with very little trouble. We intentionally don't choose to
do this with attribute-target (despite it likely working as well!)
because GCC does not support that, and introducing said
incompatibility doesn't seem worth it.
I recently ran into issues with aggregates and inheritance, I'm using
it for creating a type-safe library where most of the types are build
over "tagged" std::array. After bit of cleaning and enabling -Wall
-Wextra -pedantic I noticed clang only in my pipeline gives me warning.
After a bit of focusing on it I found it's not helpful, and contemplate
disabling the warning all together. After a discussion with other
library authors I found it's bothering more people and decided to fix
it.
Removes this warning:
template<typename T, int N> struct StdArray {
T contents[N];
};
template<typename T, int N> struct AggregateAndEmpty : StdArray<T,N> { };
AggregateAndEmpty<int, 3> p = {1, 2, 3}; // <-- warning here about omitted braces
Bruno Cardoso Lopes