Commit Graph

5 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Matheus Izvekov 989f76ce90
[clang] template / auto deduction deduces common sugar
After upgrading the type deduction machinery to retain type sugar in
D110216, we were left with a situation where there is no general
well behaved mechanism in Clang to unify the type sugar of multiple
deductions of the same type parameter.

So we ended up making an arbitrary choice: keep the sugar of the first
deduction, ignore subsequent ones.

In general, we already had this problem, but in a smaller scale.
The result of the conditional operator and many other binary ops
could benefit from such a mechanism.

This patch implements such a type sugar unification mechanism.

The basics:

This patch introduces a `getCommonSugaredType(QualType X, QualType Y)`
method to ASTContext which implements this functionality, and uses it
for unifying the results of type deduction and return type deduction.
This will return the most derived type sugar which occurs in both X and
Y.

Example:

Suppose we have these types:
```
using Animal = int;
using Cat = Animal;
using Dog = Animal;

using Tom = Cat;
using Spike = Dog;
using Tyke = Dog;
```
For `X = Tom, Y = Spike`, this will result in `Animal`.
For `X = Spike, Y = Tyke`, this will result in `Dog`.

How it works:

We take two types, X and Y, which we wish to unify as input.
These types must have the same (qualified or unqualified) canonical
type.

We dive down fast through top-level type sugar nodes, to the
underlying canonical node. If these canonical nodes differ, we
build a common one out of the two, unifying any sugar they had.
Note that this might involve a recursive call to unify any children
of those. We then return that canonical node, handling any qualifiers.

If they don't differ, we walk up the list of sugar type nodes we dived
through, finding the last identical pair, and returning that as the
result, again handling qualifiers.

Note that this patch will not unify sugar nodes if they are not
identical already. We will simply strip off top-level sugar nodes that
differ between X and Y. This sugar node unification will instead be
implemented in a subsequent patch.

This patch also implements a few users of this mechanism:
* Template argument deduction.
* Auto deduction, for functions returning auto / decltype(auto), with
  special handling for initializer_list as well.

Further users will be implemented in a subsequent patch.

Signed-off-by: Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov@gmail.com>

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111283
2022-09-16 11:20:10 +02:00
Alexander Kornienko 637da9de4c Revert "[clang] template / auto deduction deduces common sugar"
This reverts commit d200db3863, which causes a
clang crash. See https://reviews.llvm.org/D111283#3785755

Test case for convenience:
```
template <typename T>
using P = int T::*;

template <typename T, typename... A>
void j(P<T>, T, A...);

template <typename T>
void j(P<T>, T);

struct S {
  int b;
};
void g(P<S> k, S s) { j(k, s); }
```
2022-09-13 12:18:07 +02:00
Matheus Izvekov d200db3863
[clang] template / auto deduction deduces common sugar
After upgrading the type deduction machinery to retain type sugar in
D110216, we were left with a situation where there is no general
well behaved mechanism in Clang to unify the type sugar of multiple
deductions of the same type parameter.

So we ended up making an arbitrary choice: keep the sugar of the first
deduction, ignore subsequent ones.

In general, we already had this problem, but in a smaller scale.
The result of the conditional operator and many other binary ops
could benefit from such a mechanism.

This patch implements such a type sugar unification mechanism.

The basics:

This patch introduces a `getCommonSugaredType(QualType X, QualType Y)`
method to ASTContext which implements this functionality, and uses it
for unifying the results of type deduction and return type deduction.
This will return the most derived type sugar which occurs in both X and
Y.

Example:

Suppose we have these types:
```
using Animal = int;
using Cat = Animal;
using Dog = Animal;

using Tom = Cat;
using Spike = Dog;
using Tyke = Dog;
```
For `X = Tom, Y = Spike`, this will result in `Animal`.
For `X = Spike, Y = Tyke`, this will result in `Dog`.

How it works:

We take two types, X and Y, which we wish to unify as input.
These types must have the same (qualified or unqualified) canonical
type.

We dive down fast through top-level type sugar nodes, to the
underlying canonical node. If these canonical nodes differ, we
build a common one out of the two, unifying any sugar they had.
Note that this might involve a recursive call to unify any children
of those. We then return that canonical node, handling any qualifiers.

If they don't differ, we walk up the list of sugar type nodes we dived
through, finding the last identical pair, and returning that as the
result, again handling qualifiers.

Note that this patch will not unify sugar nodes if they are not
identical already. We will simply strip off top-level sugar nodes that
differ between X and Y. This sugar node unification will instead be
implemented in a subsequent patch.

This patch also implements a few users of this mechanism:
* Template argument deduction.
* Auto deduction, for functions returning auto / decltype(auto), with
  special handling for initializer_list as well.

Further users will be implemented in a subsequent patch.

Signed-off-by: Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov@gmail.com>

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111283
2022-09-08 19:17:48 +02:00
Arthur O'Dwyer 7adb85884b [clang] [NFC] More exhaustive tests for deducing void return types
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119772
2022-02-17 11:56:49 -05:00
Arthur O'Dwyer 3c8d2aa87c [clang] Don't emit redundant warnings for 'return;'
when the function declaration's return type is already invalid for
some reason. This is relevant to https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/49188
because another way that the declaration's return type could become
invalid is that it might be `C auto` where `C<void>` is false.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119094
2022-02-14 11:28:32 -05:00