unevaluated context
Closes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/58133
The direct cause for this issue is that the compilation process
continues after it found it is in a invalid state. [expr.await]p2 says
clearly that the co_await expressions are not allowed to appear in
unevaluated context. So we can exit early in this case. It also reduces
many redundant diagnostic messages (Such as 'expression with side
effects has no effect in an unevaluated context').
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"
when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes some
instances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in the
source code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
Looks like we again are going to have problems with libcxx tests that
are overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.
This reverts commit 6542cb55a3.
This patch is basically the rewording of the static assert statement's
output(error) on screen after failing. Failing a _Static_assert in C
should not report that static_assert failed. It’d probably be better to
reword the diagnostic to be more like GCC and say “static assertion”
failed in both C and C++.
consider a c file having code
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
In clang the output is like:
<source>:1:1: error: static_assert failed: oh no!
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
^ ~
1 error generated.
Compiler returned: 1
Thus here the "static_assert" is not much good, it will be better to
reword it to the "static assertion failed" to more generic. as the gcc
prints as:
<source>:1:1: error: static assertion failed: "oh no!"
1 | _Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Compiler returned: 1
The above can also be seen here. This patch is about rewording
the static_assert to static assertion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
This reverts commit b7e77ff25f.
Reason: Broke sanitizer builds bots + libcxx. 'static assertion
expression is not an integral constant expression'. More details
available in the Phabricator review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"
when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes some
instances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in the
source code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
This patch tries to implement RVO for coroutine's return object got from
get_return_object.
From [dcl.fct.def.coroutine]/p7 we could know that the return value of
get_return_object is either a reference or a prvalue. So it makes sense
to do copy elision for the return value. The return object should be
constructed directly into the storage where they would otherwise be
copied/moved to.
Test Plan: folly, check-all
Reviewed By: junparser
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D117087
First, let's check we get a TemplateDecl, before complaining about
where it might have been found.
Second, if it came from an unexpected place, show where that location is.
Reviewed By: ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116164
According to [dcl.fct.def.coroutine]p6, the promise_type is allowed to
not define return_void nor return_value:
> If searches for the names return_void and return_value in the scope
> of the promise type each find any declarations, the program is
> ill-formed.
> [Note 1: If return_void is found, flowing off the end of a coroutine is
> equivalent to a co_return with no operand. Otherwise, flowing off the
> end of a coroutine results in
> undefined behavior ([stmt.return.coroutine]). — end note]
So the program isn't ill-formed if the promise_type doesn't define
return_void nor return_value. It is just a potential UB. So the program
should be allowed to compile.
Reviewed By: urnathan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116204
The diagnostics concerning mixing std::experimental and std are
somewhat wordy and have some typographical errors. Diagnostics do not
start with a capital letter nor end with a fullstop. Usually we try
and link clauses with a semicolon, rather than start a new sentence.
So that's what this patch does. Along with avoiding repetition about
std::experimental going away.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116026
Since we've decided the to not support std::experimental::coroutine*, we
should tell the user they need to update.
Reviewed By: Quuxplusone, ldionne, Mordante
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113977
Now in libcxx and clang, all the coroutine components are defined in
std::experimental namespace.
And now the coroutine TS is merged into C++20. So in the working draft
like N4892, we could find the coroutine components is defined in std
namespace instead of std::experimental namespace.
And the coroutine support in clang seems to be relatively stable. So I
think it may be suitable to move the coroutine component into the
experiment namespace now.
This patch would make clang lookup coroutine_traits in std namespace
first. For the compatibility consideration, clang would lookup in
std::experimental namespace if it can't find definitions in std
namespace. So the existing codes wouldn't be break after update
compiler.
And in case the compiler found std::coroutine_traits and
std::experimental::coroutine_traits at the same time, it would emit an
error for it.
The support for looking up std::experimental::coroutine_traits would be
removed in Clang16.
Reviewed By: lxfind, Quuxplusone
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696
This reverts commit 2fbd254aa4, which broke the libc++ CI. I'm reverting
to get things stable again until we've figured out a way forward.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696
Summary: Now in libcxx and clang, all the coroutine components are
defined in std::experimental namespace.
And now the coroutine TS is merged into C++20. So in the working draft
like N4892, we could find the coroutine components is defined in std
namespace instead of std::experimental namespace.
And the coroutine support in clang seems to be relatively stable. So I
think it may be suitable to move the coroutine component into the
experiment namespace now.
But move the coroutine component into the std namespace may be an break
change. So I planned to split this change into two patch. One in clang
and other in libcxx.
This patch would make clang lookup coroutine_traits in std namespace
first. For the compatibility consideration, clang would lookup in
std::experimental namespace if it can't find definitions in std
namespace and emit a warning in this case. So the existing codes
wouldn't be break after update compiler.
Test Plan: check-clang, check-libcxx
Reviewed By: lxfind
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696
Chuanqi Xu