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
See https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28100.
In r266561 when I implemented allowing explicit specializations of function templates to override deleted status, I mistakenly assumed (and hence introduced a violable assertion) that when an explicit specialization was being declared, the corresponding specialization of the most specialized function template that it would get linked to would always be the one that was implicitly generated - and so if it was marked as 'deleted' it must have inherited it from the primary template and so should be safe to reset its deleted status, and set it to being an explicit specialization. Obviously during redeclaration of a deleted explicit specialization, in order to avoid a recursive reset, we need to check that the previous specialization is not an explicit specialization (instead of assuming and asserting it) and that it hasn't been referenced, and so only then is it safe to reset its 'deleted' status.
All regression tests pass.
Thanks to Zhendong Su for reporting the bug and David Majnemer for tracking it to my commit r266561, and promptly bringing it to my attention.
llvm-svn: 272631
template<class T> void f(T) = delete;
template<> void f(int); // OK.
f(3); // OK
Implementation strategy:
When an explicit specialization of a function template, a member function template or a member function of a class template is declared, clang first implicitly instantiates the declaration of a specialization from the templated-entity being explicitly specialized (since their signatures must be the same) and then links the explicit specialization being declared as a redeclaration of the aforementioned specialization.
The problem was that when clang 'implicitly instantiates' the initial specialization, it marks the corresponding FunctionDecl as deleted if the corresponding templated-entity was deleted, rather than waiting to see whether the explicit specialization being declared provides a non-deleted body. (The eager marking of delete has advantages during overload resolution I suppose, where we don't have to try and instantiate a definition of the function to see if it is deleted).
The present fix entails recognizing that when clang knows that an explicit specialization is being declared (for whichever templated-entity), the prior implicit instantiation should not inherit the 'deleted' status, and so we reset it to false.
I suppose an alternative fix (amongst others) could consider creating a new context (ExplicitSpecializationDeclarationSubstitution or some such) that is checked during template-argument-deduction and final substitution, and avoid inheriting the deleted status during declaration substitution. But while conceptually cleaner, that would be a slightly more involved change (as could be some of the other alternatives: such as avoid tagging implicit specializations as deleted, and check their primary templates for the deleted status where needed), and so I chose a different path. Hopefully it'll prove to not be a bad choice.
llvm-svn: 266561
Muhammad Usman Shahid