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.
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
explicit functions that are not candidates.
It's not always obvious that the reason a conversion was not possible is
because the function you wanted to call is 'explicit', so explicitly say
if that's the case.
It would be nice to rank the explicit candidates higher in the
diagnostic if an implicit conversion sequence exists for their
arguments, but unfortunately we can't determine that without potentially
triggering non-immediate-context errors that we're not permitted to
produce.
std::initializer_list<T> type. Instead, the list must contain a single element
and the type is deduced from that.
In Clang 3.7, we warned by default on all the cases that would change meaning
due to this change. In Clang 3.8, we will support only the new rules -- per
the request in N3922, this change is applied as a Defect Report against earlier
versions of the C++ standard.
This change is not entirely trivial, because for lambda init-captures we
previously did not track the difference between direct-list-initialization and
copy-list-initialization. The difference was not previously observable, because
the two forms of initialization always did the same thing (the elements of the
initializer list were always copy-initialized regardless of the initialization
style used for the init-capture).
llvm-svn: 252688
(or of a lambda init-capture, which is sort-of such a variable). The semantics
of such constructs will change when we implement N3922, so we intend to warn on
this in Clang 3.6 then change the semantics in Clang 3.7.
llvm-svn: 228792
the result of a cast-to-reference-type lifetime-extends the object to which the
reference inside the cast binds.
This requires us to look for subobject adjustments on both the inside and the
outside of the MaterializeTemporaryExpr when looking for a temporary to
lifetime-extend (which we also need for core issue 616, and possibly 1213).
llvm-svn: 184024
a FieldDecl from it, and propagate both into the closure type and the
LambdaExpr.
You can't do much useful with them yet -- you can't use them within the body
of the lambda, because we don't have a representation for "the this of the
lambda, not the this of the enclosing context". We also don't have support or a
representation for a nested capture of an init-capture yet, which was intended
to work despite not being allowed by the current standard wording.
llvm-svn: 181985
Fangrui Song