Commit Graph

5 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Dávid Bolvanský b06305e449 [Diagnostics] Warn for std::is_constant_evaluated in constexpr mode
Summary:
constexpr int fn1() {
  if constexpr (std::is_constant_evaluated()) // condition is always true!
    return 0;
  else
    return 1;
}

constexpr int fn2() {
  if (std::is_constant_evaluated())
    return 0;
  else
    return 1;
}

Solves PR42977

Reviewers: rsmith, aaron.ballman

Reviewed By: rsmith

Subscribers: cfe-commits

Tags: #clang

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69518
2019-10-31 10:03:11 +01:00
Richard Smith 76b9027f35 [c++20] Add support for explicit(bool), as described in P0892R2.
Patch by Tyker!

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60934

llvm-svn: 360311
2019-05-09 03:59:21 +00:00
Hans Wennborg d2b9fc88c8 Revert r359949 "[clang] adding explicit(bool) from c++2a"
This caused Clang to start erroring on the following:

  struct S {
    template <typename = int> explicit S();
  };

  struct T : S {};

  struct U : T {
    U();
  };
  U::U() {}

  $ clang -c /tmp/x.cc
  /tmp/x.cc:10:4: error: call to implicitly-deleted default constructor of 'T'
  U::U() {}
     ^
  /tmp/x.cc:5:12: note: default constructor of 'T' is implicitly deleted
    because base class 'S' has no default constructor
  struct T : S {};
             ^
  1 error generated.

See discussion on the cfe-commits email thread.

This also reverts the follow-ups r359966 and r359968.

> this patch adds support for the explicit bool specifier.
>
> Changes:
> - The parsing for the explicit(bool) specifier was added in ParseDecl.cpp.
> - The storage of the explicit specifier was changed. the explicit specifier was stored as a boolean value in the FunctionDeclBitfields and in the DeclSpec class. now it is stored as a PointerIntPair<Expr*, 2> with a flag and a potential expression in CXXConstructorDecl, CXXDeductionGuideDecl, CXXConversionDecl and in the DeclSpec class.
> - Following the AST change, Serialization, ASTMatchers, ASTComparator and ASTPrinter were adapted.
> - Template instantiation was adapted to instantiate the potential expressions of the explicit(bool) specifier When instantiating their associated declaration.
> - The Add*Candidate functions were adapted, they now take a Boolean indicating if the context allowing explicit constructor or conversion function and this boolean is used to remove invalid overloads that required template instantiation to be detected.
> - Test for Semantic and Serialization were added.
>
> This patch is not yet complete. I still need to check that interaction with CTAD and deduction guides is correct. and add more tests for AST operations. But I wanted first feedback.
> Perhaps this patch should be spited in smaller patches, but making each patch testable as a standalone may be tricky.
>
> Patch by Tyker
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60934

llvm-svn: 360024
2019-05-06 09:51:10 +00:00
Nicolas Lesser 5fe2ddbdf4 [clang] adding explicit(bool) from c++2a
this patch adds support for the explicit bool specifier.

Changes:
- The parsing for the explicit(bool) specifier was added in ParseDecl.cpp.
- The storage of the explicit specifier was changed. the explicit specifier was stored as a boolean value in the FunctionDeclBitfields and in the DeclSpec class. now it is stored as a PointerIntPair<Expr*, 2> with a flag and a potential expression in CXXConstructorDecl, CXXDeductionGuideDecl, CXXConversionDecl and in the DeclSpec class.
- Following the AST change, Serialization, ASTMatchers, ASTComparator and ASTPrinter were adapted.
- Template instantiation was adapted to instantiate the potential expressions of the explicit(bool) specifier When instantiating their associated declaration.
- The Add*Candidate functions were adapted, they now take a Boolean indicating if the context allowing explicit constructor or conversion function and this boolean is used to remove invalid overloads that required template instantiation to be detected.
- Test for Semantic and Serialization were added.

This patch is not yet complete. I still need to check that interaction with CTAD and deduction guides is correct. and add more tests for AST operations. But I wanted first feedback.
Perhaps this patch should be spited in smaller patches, but making each patch testable as a standalone may be tricky.

Patch by Tyker

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60934

llvm-svn: 359949
2019-05-04 00:09:00 +00:00
Eric Fiselier add16a8da9 [Builtins] Implement __builtin_is_constant_evaluated for use in C++2a
Summary:
This patch implements `__builtin_is_constant_evaluated` as specifier by [P0595R2](https://wg21.link/p0595r2). It is built on the back of Bill Wendling's work for `__builtin_constant_p()`.

More tests to come, but early feedback is appreciated.

I plan to implement warnings for common mis-usages like those belowe in a following patch:
```
void foo(int x) {
  if constexpr (std::is_constant_evaluated())) { // condition is always `true`. Should use plain `if` instead.
   foo_constexpr(x);
  } else {
    foo_runtime(x);
  }
}
```



Reviewers: rsmith, MaskRay, bruno, void

Reviewed By: rsmith

Subscribers: dexonsmith, zoecarver, fdeazeve, kristina, cfe-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55500

llvm-svn: 359067
2019-04-24 02:23:30 +00:00