This patch implements P0634r3 that removes the need for 'typename' in certain contexts.
For example,
```
template <typename T>
using foo = T::type; // ok
```
This is also allowed in previous language versions as an extension, because I think it's pretty useful. :)
Reviewed By: #clang-language-wg, erichkeane
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53847
Adds
* `__add_lvalue_reference`
* `__add_pointer`
* `__add_rvalue_reference`
* `__decay`
* `__make_signed`
* `__make_unsigned`
* `__remove_all_extents`
* `__remove_extent`
* `__remove_const`
* `__remove_volatile`
* `__remove_cv`
* `__remove_pointer`
* `__remove_reference`
* `__remove_cvref`
These are all compiler built-in equivalents of the unary type traits
found in [[meta.trans]][1]. The compiler already has all of the
information it needs to answer these transformations, so we can skip
needing to make partial specialisations in standard library
implementations (we already do this for a lot of the query traits). This
will hopefully improve compile times, as we won't need use as much
memory in such a base part of the standard library.
[1]: http://wg21.link/meta.trans
Co-authored-by: zoecarver
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116203
Adds
* `__add_lvalue_reference`
* `__add_pointer`
* `__add_rvalue_reference`
* `__decay`
* `__make_signed`
* `__make_unsigned`
* `__remove_all_extents`
* `__remove_extent`
* `__remove_const`
* `__remove_volatile`
* `__remove_cv`
* `__remove_pointer`
* `__remove_reference`
* `__remove_cvref`
These are all compiler built-in equivalents of the unary type traits
found in [[meta.trans]][1]. The compiler already has all of the
information it needs to answer these transformations, so we can skip
needing to make partial specialisations in standard library
implementations (we already do this for a lot of the query traits). This
will hopefully improve compile times, as we won't need use as much
memory in such a base part of the standard library.
[1]: http://wg21.link/meta.trans
Co-authored-by: zoecarver
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116203
Before this patch type traits are checked in Parser, so use type traits
directly did not cause assertion faults. However if type traits are initialized
from a template, we didn't perform arity checks before evaluating. This
patch moves arity checks from Parser to Sema, and performing arity
checks in Sema actions, so type traits get checked corretly.
Crash input:
```
template<class... Ts> bool b = __is_constructible(Ts...);
bool x = b<>;
```
After this patch:
```
clang/test/SemaCXX/type-trait-eval-crash-issue-57008.cpp:5:32: error: type trait requires 1 or more arguments; have 0 arguments
template<class... Ts> bool b = __is_constructible(Ts...);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
clang/test/SemaCXX/type-trait-eval-crash-issue-57008.cpp:6:10: note: in instantiation of variable template specialization 'b<>' requested here
bool x = b<>;
^
1 error generated.
```
See https://godbolt.org/z/q39W78hsK.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57008
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131423
For backwards compatiblity, we emit only a warning instead of an error if the
attribute is one of the existing type attributes that we have historically
allowed to "slide" to the `DeclSpec` just as if it had been specified in GNU
syntax. (We will call these "legacy type attributes" below.)
The high-level changes that achieve this are:
- We introduce a new field `Declarator::DeclarationAttrs` (with appropriate
accessors) to store C++11 attributes occurring in the attribute-specifier-seq
at the beginning of a simple-declaration (and other similar declarations).
Previously, these attributes were placed on the `DeclSpec`, which made it
impossible to reconstruct later on whether the attributes had in fact been
placed on the decl-specifier-seq or ahead of the declaration.
- In the parser, we propgate declaration attributes and decl-specifier-seq
attributes separately until we can place them in
`Declarator::DeclarationAttrs` or `DeclSpec::Attrs`, respectively.
- In `ProcessDeclAttributes()`, in addition to processing declarator attributes,
we now also process the attributes from `Declarator::DeclarationAttrs` (except
if they are legacy type attributes).
- In `ConvertDeclSpecToType()`, in addition to processing `DeclSpec` attributes,
we also process any legacy type attributes that occur in
`Declarator::DeclarationAttrs` (and emit a warning).
- We make `ProcessDeclAttribute` emit an error if it sees any non-declaration
attributes in C++11 syntax, except in the following cases:
- If it is being called for attributes on a `DeclSpec` or `DeclaratorChunk`
- If the attribute is a legacy type attribute (in which case we only emit
a warning)
The standard justifies treating attributes at the beginning of a
simple-declaration and attributes after a declarator-id the same. Here are some
relevant parts of the standard:
- The attribute-specifier-seq at the beginning of a simple-declaration
"appertains to each of the entities declared by the declarators of the
init-declarator-list" (https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.dcl#dcl.pre-3)
- "In the declaration for an entity, attributes appertaining to that entity can
appear at the start of the declaration and after the declarator-id for that
declaration." (https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.dcl#dcl.pre-note-2)
- "The optional attribute-specifier-seq following a declarator-id appertains to
the entity that is declared."
(https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.dcl#dcl.meaning.general-1)
The standard contains similar wording to that for a simple-declaration in other
similar types of declarations, for example:
- "The optional attribute-specifier-seq in a parameter-declaration appertains to
the parameter." (https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.fct#3)
- "The optional attribute-specifier-seq in an exception-declaration appertains
to the parameter of the catch clause" (https://eel.is/c++draft/except.pre#1)
The new behavior is tested both on the newly added type attribute
`annotate_type`, for which we emit errors, and for the legacy type attribute
`address_space` (chosen somewhat randomly from the various legacy type
attributes), for which we emit warnings.
Depends On D111548
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman, rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126061
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.
Partially implement the proposed resolution to CWG2569.
D119136 broke some libstdc++ code, as P2036R3, implemented as a DR to
C++11 made ill-formed some previously valid and innocuous code.
We resolve this issue to allow decltype(x) - but not decltype((x)
to appear in the parameter list of a lambda that capture x by copy.
Unlike CWG2569, we do not extend that special treatment to
sizeof/noexcept yet, as the resolution has not been approved yet
and keeping the review small allows a quicker fix of impacted code.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123909
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
Move the SourceRange from the old ParsedAttributesWithRange into
ParsedAttributesView, so we have source range information available
everywhere we use attributes.
This also removes ParsedAttributesWithRange (replaced by simply using
ParsedAttributes) and ParsedAttributesVieWithRange (replaced by using
ParsedAttributesView).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121201
It's almost always entirely unused and if it is used, the end of the
attribute range can be used instead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120888
The parsing code for a typename requirement currently asserts when
given something which is not a valid type-requirement
(http://eel.is/c++draft/expr.prim.req.type#nt:type-requirement). This
removes the assertion to continue on to the proper diagnostic.
This resolves PR53057.
Note that in that PR, it is using _BitInt(N) as a dependent type name.
This patch does not attempt to support that as it is not clear that is
a valid type requirement (it does not match the grammar production for
one). The workaround in the PR, however, is definitely valid and works
as expected.
This allows the body to be parsed.
An special-case that would replace a missing if condition with OpaqueValueExpr
was removed as it's now redundant (unless recovery-expr is disabled).
For loops are not handled at this point, as the parsing is more complicated.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113752
Implementation is based on the "expected type" as used for
designated-initializers in braced init lists. This means it can deduce the type
in some cases where it's not written:
void foo(Widget);
foo({ /*help here*/ });
Only basic constructor calls are in scope of this patch, excluded are:
- aggregate initialization (no help is offered for aggregates)
- initializer_list initialization (no help is offered for these constructors)
Fixes https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/306
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116317
Provide signature while typing template arguments: Foo< ^here >
Here the parameters are e.g. "typename x", and the result type is e.g.
"struct" (class template) or "int" (variable template) or "bool (std::string)"
(function template).
Multiple overloads are possible when a template name is used for several
overloaded function templates.
Fixes https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/299
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116352
WG14 adopted the _ExtInt feature from Clang for C23, but renamed the
type to be _BitInt. This patch does the vast majority of the work to
rename _ExtInt to _BitInt, which accounts for most of its size. The new
type is exposed in older C modes and all C++ modes as a conforming
extension. However, there are functional changes worth calling out:
* Deprecates _ExtInt with a fix-it to help users migrate to _BitInt.
* Updates the mangling for the type.
* Updates the documentation and adds a release note to warn users what
is going on.
* Adds new diagnostics for use of _BitInt to call out when it's used as
a Clang extension or as a pre-C23 compatibility concern.
* Adds new tests for the new diagnostic behaviors.
I want to call out the ABI break specifically. We do not believe that
this break will cause a significant imposition for early adopters of
the feature, and so this is being done as a full break. If it turns out
there are critical uses where recompilation is not an option for some
reason, we can consider using ABI tags to ease the transition.
Currently, we have no front-end type for ppc_fp128 type in IR. PowerPC
target generates ppc_fp128 type from long double now, but there's option
(-mabi=(ieee|ibm)longdouble) to control it and we're going to do
transition from IBM extended double-double ppc_fp128 to IEEE fp128 in
the future.
This patch adds type __ibm128 which always represents ppc_fp128 in IR,
as what GCC did for that type. Without this type in Clang, compilation
will fail if compiling against future version of libstdcxx (which uses
__ibm128 in headers).
Although all operations in backend for __ibm128 is done by software,
only PowerPC enables support for it.
There's something not implemented in this commit, which can be done in
future ones:
- Literal suffix for __ibm128 type. w/W is suitable as GCC documented.
- __attribute__((mode(IF))) should be for __ibm128.
- Complex __ibm128 type.
Reviewed By: rjmccall
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93377
This patch implements P2092
Simple requirements in requirement body shall not start with requires.
A warning was already in place so we just turn this warning into an error.
In addition, we add tests to make sure typename is optional in
requirement-parameter-list as per the same paper.
According to https://eel.is/c++draft/over.literal
> double operator""_Bq(long double); // OK: does not use the reserved identifier _Bq ([lex.name])
> double operator"" _Bq(long double); // ill-formed, no diagnostic required: uses the reserved identifier _Bq ([lex.name])
Obey that rule by keeping track of the operator literal name status wrt. leading whitespace.
Fix: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50644
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104299
The condition variable is in scope in the loop increment, so we need to
emit the jump destination from wthin the scope of the condition
variable.
For GCC compatibility (and compatibility with real-world 'FOR_EACH'
macros), 'continue' is permitted in a statement expression within the
condition of a for loop, though, so there are two cases here:
* If the for loop has no condition variable, we can emit the jump
destination before emitting the condition.
* If the for loop has a condition variable, we must defer emitting the
jump destination until after emitting the variable. We diagnose a
'continue' appearing in the initializer of the condition variable,
because it would jump past the initializer into the scope of that
variable.
Reviewed By: rjmccall
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98816
Somewhat surprisingly, signature help is emitted as a side-effect of
computing the expected type of a function argument.
The reason is that both actions require enumerating the possible
function signatures and running partial overload resolution, and doing
this twice would be wasteful and complicated.
Change #1: document this, it's subtle :-)
However, sometimes we need to compute the expected type without having
reached the code completion cursor yet - in particular to allow
completion of designators.
eb4ab3358c did this but introduced a
regression - it emits signature help in the wrong location as a side-effect.
Change #2: only emit signature help if the code completion cursor was reached.
Currently there is PP.isCodeCompletionReached(), but we can't use it
because it's set *after* running code completion.
It'd be nice to set this implicitly when the completion token is lexed,
but ConsumeCodeCompletionToken() makes this complicated.
Change #3: call cutOffParsing() *first* when seeing a completion token.
After this, the fact that the Sema::Produce*SignatureHelp() functions
are even more confusing, as they only sometimes do that.
I don't want to rename them in this patch as it's another large
mechanical change, but we should soon.
Change #4: prepare to rename ProduceSignatureHelp() to GuessArgumentType() etc.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98488
https://wg21.link/P2173 is making its way through WG21 currently and
has not been formally adopted yet. This feature provides very useful
functionality in that you can specify attributes on the various
function *declarations* generated by a lambda expression, where the
current C++ grammar only allows attributes which apply to the various
function *types* so generated.
This patch implements P2173 on the assumption that it will be adopted
by WG21 with this syntax for C++23.
In Clang today, we parse the different attribute syntaxes
(__attribute__, __declspec, and [[]]) in a fairly rigid order. This
leads to confusion for users when they guess the order incorrectly,
and leads to bug reports like PR24559 or necessitates changes like
D94788.
This patch adds a helper function to allow us to more easily parse
attributes in arbitrary order, and then updates all of the places
where we would parse two or more different syntaxes in a rigid order to
use the helper method. The patch does not attempt to handle Microsoft
attributes ([]) because those are ambiguous with other code constructs
and we don't have any attributes that use the syntax.
template-parameter-list in a lambda.
This implements one of the missing parts of P0857R0. Mark it as not done
on the cxx_status page given that it's still incomplete.
Reviewed here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91409 by Aaron.
Highlights of the review:
- avoid an underlying type for enums
- avoid enum bit fields (MSVC packing anomalies) and favor static_casts to unsigned bit-fields
Patch by Thorsten Schuett <schuett@gmail.com> w some minor fixes in SemaType.cpp where a couple asserts had to be repaired to deal with lack of implicit coversion to int.
Thanks Thorsten!
Since these are scoped enumerators, they have to be prefixed by DeclaratorContext, so lets remove Context from the name, and return some characters to the multiverse.
Patch was reviewed here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91011
Thank you to aaron, bruno, wyatt and barry for indulging me.
We collect the source location of a trailing return type in the parser,
improving the location for regular functions and providing a location
for lambdas, where previously there was none.
Fixes PR47732.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90129
Currently a capture-default which is not the first element in the lambda-capture
is diagnosed with a generic expected variable name or 'this' in lambda capture
list, which is true but not very helpful.
If we don't have already parsed a capture-default then a lone "&" or "=" is
likely to be a misplaced capture-default, so diagnose it as such.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83681
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
C++ unqualified name lookup searches template parameter scopes
immediately after finishing searching the entity the parameters belong
to. (Eg, for a class template, you search the template parameter scope
after looking in that class template and its base classes and before
looking in the scope containing the class template.) This is complicated
by the fact that scope lookup within a template parameter scope looks in
a different sequence of places prior to reaching the end of the
declarator-id in the template declaration.
We used to approximate the proper lookup rule with a hack in the scope /
decl context walk inside name lookup. Now we instead compute the lookup
parent for each template parameter scope.
In order to get this right, we now make sure to enter a distinct Scope
for each template parameter scope, and make sure to re-enter the
enclosing class scopes properly when handling delay-parsed regions
within a class.
We weren't re-entering template scopes in the right order, causing this
to break self-host with -fdelayed-template-parsing.
This reverts commit 237c2a23b6.
C++ unqualified name lookup searches template parameter scopes
immediately after finishing searching the entity the parameters belong
to. (Eg, for a class template, you search the template parameter scope
after looking in that class template and its base classes and before
looking in the scope containing the class template.) This is complicated
by the fact that scope lookup within a template parameter scope looks in
a different sequence of places prior to reaching the end of the
declarator-id in the template declaration.
We used to approximate the proper lookup rule with a hack in the scope /
decl context walk inside name lookup. Now we instead compute the lookup
parent for each template parameter scope. This gets the right answer and
as a bonus is substantially simpler and more uniform.
In order to get this right, we now make sure to enter a distinct Scope
for each template parameter scope. (The fact that we didn't before was
already a bug, but not really observable most of the time, since
template parameters can't shadow each other.)
Roy Jacobson