deduction for invalid functions
The fabricated template parameters cause an assertion because their depth
is invalid.
rdar://34109988
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37341
llvm-svn: 316778
constant expressions.
We permit array-to-pointer decay on such arrays, but disallow pointer
arithmetic (since we do not know whether it will have defined behavior).
This is based on r311970 and r301822 (the former by me and the latter by Robert
Haberlach). Between then and now, two things have changed: we have committee
feedback indicating that this is indeed the right direction, and the code
broken by this change has been fixed.
This is necessary in C++17 to continue accepting certain forms of non-type
template argument involving arrays of unknown bound.
llvm-svn: 316245
instantiation declarations if they are usable from constant expressions.
We are permitted to instantiate in these cases, and required to do so in order
to have an initializer available for use within constant evaluation.
llvm-svn: 316136
Currently Clang uses default address space (0) to represent private address space for OpenCL
in AST. There are two issues with this:
Multiple address spaces including private address space cannot be diagnosed.
There is no mangling for default address space. For example, if private int* is emitted as
i32 addrspace(5)* in IR. It is supposed to be mangled as PUAS5i but it is mangled as
Pi instead.
This patch attempts to represent OpenCL private address space explicitly in AST. It adds
a new enum LangAS::opencl_private and adds it to the variable types which are implicitly
private:
automatic variables without address space qualifier
function parameter
pointee type without address space qualifier (OpenCL 1.2 and below)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35082
llvm-svn: 315668
Modifying a non-type template integer arguement that is causing errors
in some builds as it's too large for 32-bit longs. This hopefully (and
seems to when testing) should fix all of the build bot errors relating
to this test. I also modified the name of the function call to be more
apt.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33666
llvm-svn: 314668
Adding regression test for Dependent Address Spaces in relation to
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33666 I forgot to svn add the test file
before commiting the prior changes. I appologies.
llvm-svn: 314650
This implements the proposed approach in https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/33
This reinstates r313827, reverted in r313856, with a fix for the 'out-of-bounds
enumeration value' ubsan error in that change.
llvm-svn: 313955
Sema::InstantiateClass should check only exception specs added during
class instantiation and ignore already present delayed specs. This fixes
a case where we instantiate a class before parsing member initializers,
check exceptions for a different class and fail to find a member
initializer. Which is required for comparing exception specs for
explicitly-defaulted and implicit default constructor. With the fix we
are still checking exception specs but only after member initializers
are present.
Removing errors in crash-unparsed-exception.cpp is acceptable according
to discussion in PR24000 because other compilers accept code in
crash-unparsed-exception.cpp as valid.
rdar://problem/34167492
Reviewers: davide, rsmith
Reviewed By: rsmith
Subscribers: dim, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37881
llvm-svn: 313906
When enable_if disables a particular overload resolution candidate,
rummage through the enable_if condition to find the specific condition
that caused the failure. For example, if we have something like:
template<
typename Iter,
typename = std::enable_if_t<Random_access_iterator<Iter> &&
Comparable<Iterator_value_type<Iter>>>>
void mysort(Iter first, Iter last) {}
and we call "mysort" with "std::list<int>" iterators, we'll get a
diagnostic saying that the "Random_access_iterator<Iter>" requirement
failed. If we call "mysort" with
"std::vector<something_not_comparable>", we'll get a diagnostic saying
that the "Comparable<...>" requirement failed.
llvm-svn: 307196
Summary:
This patch aims to fix the bug reported at
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33189. Clang hits an assertion
when a template destructor declaration is present. This is caused by
later processing that does not expect to encounter a template when
looking at a destructor. The resolution is to treat the destructor as
being not declared when later processing is interested in the properties
of the destructor of a class.
Reviewers: rcraik, hubert.reinterpretcast, aaron.ballman, rsmith
Reviewed By: rsmith
Subscribers: rsmith, cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33833
Patch by Kuang He!
llvm-svn: 306905
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
template is valid with or without it (with different meanings).
If we see "dependent.x<...", and what follows the '<' is a valid expression,
we must parse the '<' as a comparison rather than a template angle bracket.
When we later come to instantiate, if we find that the LHS of the '<' actually
names an overload set containing function templates, produce a diagnostic
suggesting that the 'template' keyword was missed rather than producing a
mysterious diagnostic saying that the function must be called (and pointing
at what looks to already be a function call!).
llvm-svn: 304852
template partial specialization.
In passing, fix the deduction-crash.cpp test to actually run all the tests. Due
to a typo, the last third of the file was being skipped by the parser and some
of the tests were not actually testing anything as a result. Switch from
FileCheck to -verify to make the problem more obvious and prevent this
happening again.
llvm-svn: 304604
When an undeclared identifier in a context that requires a type is followed by
'<', only look for type templates when typo-correcting, tweak the diagnostic
text to say that a template name (not a type name) was undeclared, and parse
the template arguments when recovering from the error.
llvm-svn: 302732
The heuristic that we use here is:
* the left-hand side must be a simple identifier or a class member access
* the right-hand side must be '<' followed by either a '>' or by a type-id that
cannot be an expression (in particular, not followed by '(' or '{')
* there is a '>' token matching the '<' token
The second condition guarantees the expression would otherwise be ill-formed.
If we're confident that the user intended the name before the '<' to be
interpreted as a template, diagnose the fact that we didn't interpret it
that way, rather than diagnosing that the template arguments are not valid
expressions.
llvm-svn: 302615
This improves our behavior in a few ways:
* We now guarantee that if a member is marked as being a member
specialization, there will actually be a member specialization declaration
somewhere on its redeclaration chain. This fixes a crash in modules builds
where we would try to check that there was a visible declaration of the
member specialization and be surprised to not find any declaration of it at
all.
* We don't set the source location of the in-class declaration of the member
specialization to the out-of-line declaration's location until we have
actually finished merging them. This fixes some very silly looking
diagnostics, where we'd point a "previous declaration is here" note at the
same declaration we're complaining about. Ideally we wouldn't mess with the
prior declaration's location at all, but too much code assumes that the
first declaration of an entity is a reasonable thing to use as an indication
of where it was declared, and that's not really true for a member
specialization unless we fake it like this.
llvm-svn: 302596
The code implements Richard Smith suggestion in comment 3 of the PR.
reviewer: Vassil Vassilev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31540
llvm-svn: 300443
This reverts an attempt to check that types match when matching a
dependently-typed non-type template parameter. (This comes up when matching the
parameters of a template template parameter against the parameters of a
template template argument.)
The matching rules here are murky at best. Our behavior after this revert is
definitely wrong for certain C++17 features (for 'auto' template parameter
types within the parameter list of a template template argument in particular),
but our behavior before this revert is wrong for some pre-existing testcases,
so reverting to our prior behavior seems like our best option.
llvm-svn: 300262
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
compiler is run in a mode where the default C++ standard is newer than C++03.
The reason is because one of the warnings checked is only produced when the
compiler is using C++03 or lower.
This change fixes this problem as well as adds explicit run lines to run the
test in C++03 and C++11 modes.
llvm-svn: 296066
A 'decltype(auto)' parameter can match any other kind of non-type template
parameter, so should be usable in place of any other parameter in a template
template argument. The standard is sadly extremely unclear on how this is
supposed to work, but this seems like the obviously-correct result.
It's less clear whether an 'auto' parameter should be able to match
'decltype(auto)', since the former cannot be used if the latter turns out to be
used for a reference type, but if we disallow that then consistency suggests we
should also disallow 'auto' matching 'T' for the same reason, defeating
intended use cases of the feature.
llvm-svn: 295866
We need to look through the PackExpansionType in the parameter type when
deducing, and we need to consider the possibility of deducing arguments for
packs that are not lexically mentioned in the pattern (but are nonetheless
deducible) when figuring out which packs are covered by a pack deduction scope.
llvm-svn: 295790
template deduction guides for class template argument deduction.
Ensure that we have a local instantiation scope for tracking the instantiated
parameters. Additionally, unusually, we're substituting at depth 1 and leaving
depth 0 alone; make sure that we don't reduce template parameter depth by 2 for
inner parameters in the process. (This is probably also broken for alias
templates in the case where they're expanded within a dependent context, but
this patch doesn't fix that.)
llvm-svn: 295696
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
that has been explicitly specialized!
We assume in various places that we can tell the template specialization kind
of a class type by looking at the declaration produced by TagType::getDecl.
That was previously not quite true: for an explicit specialization, we could
have first seen a template-id denoting the specialization (with a use that does
not trigger an implicit instantiation of the defintiion) and then seen the
first explicit specialization declaration. TagType::getDecl would previously
return an arbitrary declaration when called on a not-yet-defined class; it
now consistently returns the most recent declaration in that case.
llvm-svn: 295118
This change adds a new type node, DeducedTemplateSpecializationType, to
represent a type template name that has been used as a type. This is modeled
around AutoType, and shares a common base class for representing a deduced
placeholder type.
We allow deduced class template types in a few more places than the standard
does: in conditions and for-range-declarators, and in new-type-ids. This is
consistent with GCC and with discussion on the core reflector. This patch
does not yet support deduced class template types being named in typename
specifiers.
llvm-svn: 293207
Under this defect resolution, the injected-class-name of a class or class
template cannot be used except in very limited circumstances (when declaring a
constructor, in a nested-name-specifier, in a base-specifier, or in an
elaborated-type-specifier). This is apparently done to make parsing easier, but
it's a pain for us since we don't know whether a template-id using the
injected-class-name is valid at the point when we annotate it (we don't yet
know whether the template-id will become part of an elaborated-type-specifier).
As a tentative resolution to a perceived language defect, mem-initializer-ids
are added to the list of exceptions here (they generally follow the same rules
as base-specifiers).
When the reference to the injected-class-name uses the 'typename' or 'template'
keywords, we permit it to be used to name a type or template as an extension;
other compilers also accept some cases in this area. There are also a couple of
corner cases with dependent template names that we do not yet diagnose, but
which will also get this treatment.
llvm-svn: 292518
The rules around typechecking deduced template arguments during partial
ordering are not clear, and while the prior behavior does not seem to be
correct (it doesn't follow the general model of partial ordering where each
template parameter is replaced by a non-dependent but unique value), the new
behavior is also not clearly right and breaks some existing idioms.
The new behavior is retained for dealing with non-type template parameters
with 'auto' types, as without it even the most basic uses of that feature
don't work. We can revisit this once CWG has come to an agreement on how
partial ordering with 'auto' non-type template parameters is supposed to
work.
llvm-svn: 292183
Alex Lorenz