This reverts commit ce4aada6e2135e29839f672a6599db628b53295d and a
follow-up patch 8ef26f1289bf069ccc0d6383f2f4c0116a1206c1.
This new warning can not be fully suppressed by the
`-Wno-missing-dependent-template-keyword` flag, this gives developer no
time to do the cleanup in a large codebase, see https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98547#issuecomment-2228250884
Reapplies #92957, fixing an instance where the `template` keyword was
missing prior to a dependent name in `llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h`. An
_alias-declaration_ is used to work around a bug affecting GCC releases
before 11.1 (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94799) which
rejects the use of the `template` keyword prior to the
_nested-name-specifier_ in the class member access.
CWG1835 was one of the many core issues resolved by P1787R6: "Declarations and where to
find them" (http://wg21.link/p1787r6). Its resolution changes how
member-qualified names (as defined by [basic.lookup.qual.general] p2) are looked
up. This patch implementation that resolution.
Previously, an _identifier_ following `.` or `->` would be first looked
up in the type of the object expression (i.e. qualified lookup), and
then in the context of the _postfix-expression_ (i.e. unqualified
lookup) if nothing was found; the result of the second lookup was
required to name a class template. Notably, this second lookup would
occur even when the object expression was dependent, and its result
would be used to determine whether a `<` token is the start of a
_template-argument_list_.
The new wording in [basic.lookup.qual.general] p2 states:
> A member-qualified name is the (unique) component name, if any, of
> - an _unqualified-id_ or
> - a _nested-name-specifier_ of the form _`type-name ::`_ or
_`namespace-name ::`_
>
> in the id-expression of a class member access expression. A
***qualified name*** is
> - a member-qualified name or
> - the terminal name of
> - a _qualified-id_,
> - a _using-declarator_,
> - a _typename-specifier_,
> - a _qualified-namespace-specifier_, or
> - a _nested-name-specifier_, _elaborated-type-specifier_, or
_class-or-decltype_ that has a _nested-name-specifier_.
>
> The _lookup context_ of a member-qualified name is the type of its
associated object expression (considered dependent if the object
expression is type-dependent). The lookup context of any other qualified
name is the type, template, or namespace nominated by the preceding
_nested-name-specifier_.
And [basic.lookup.qual.general] p3 now states:
> _Qualified name lookup_ in a class, namespace, or enumeration performs
a search of the scope associated with it except as specified below.
Unless otherwise specified, a qualified name undergoes qualified name
lookup in its lookup context from the point where it appears unless the
lookup context either is dependent and is not the current instantiation
or is not a class or class template. If nothing is found by qualified
lookup for a member-qualified name that is the terminal name of a
_nested-name-specifier_ and is not dependent, it undergoes unqualified
lookup.
In non-standardese terms, these two paragraphs essentially state the
following:
- A name that immediately follows `.` or `->` in a class member access
expression is a member-qualified name
- A member-qualified name will be first looked up in the type of the
object expression `T` unless `T` is a dependent type that is _not_ the
current instantiation, e.g.
```
template<typename T>
struct A
{
void f(T* t)
{
this->x; // type of the object expression is 'A<T>'. although 'A<T>' is dependent, it is the
// current instantiation so we look up 'x' in the template definition context.
t->y; // type of the object expression is 'T' ('->' is transformed to '.' per [expr.ref]).
// 'T' is dependent and is *not* the current instantiation, so we lookup 'y' in the
// template instantiation context.
}
};
```
- If the first lookup finds nothing and:
- the member-qualified name is the first component of a
_nested-name-specifier_ (which could be an _identifier_ or a
_simple-template-id_), and either:
- the type of the object expression is the current instantiation and it
has no dependent base classes, or
- the type of the object expression is not dependent
then we lookup the name again, this time via unqualified lookup.
Although the second (unqualified) lookup is stated not to occur when the
member-qualified name is dependent, a dependent name will _not_ be
dependent once the template is instantiated, so the second lookup must
"occur" during instantiation if qualified lookup does not find anything.
This means that we must perform the second (unqualified) lookup during
parsing even when the type of the object expression is dependent, but
those results are _not_ used to determine whether a `<` token is the
start of a _template-argument_list_; they are stored so we can replicate
the second lookup during instantiation.
In even simpler terms (paraphrasing the meeting minutes from the review of P1787; see https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21summer2020/P1787%28Lookup%29Review2020-06-15Through2020-06-18):
- Unqualified lookup always happens for the first name in a
_nested-name-specifier_ that follows `.` or `->`
- The result of that lookup is only used to determine whether `<` is the
start of a _template-argument-list_ if the first (qualified) lookup
found nothing and the lookup context:
- is not dependent, or
- is the current instantiation and has no dependent base classes.
An example:
```
struct A
{
void f();
};
template<typename T>
using B = A;
template<typename T>
struct C : A
{
template<typename U>
void g();
void h(T* t)
{
this->g<int>(); // ok, '<' is the start of a template-argument-list ('g' was found via qualified lookup in the current instantiation)
this->B<void>::f(); // ok, '<' is the start of a template-argument-list (current instantiation has no dependent bases, 'B' was found via unqualified lookup)
t->g<int>(); // error: '<' means less than (unqualified lookup does not occur for a member-qualified name that isn't the first component of a nested-name-specifier)
t->B<void>::f(); // error: '<' means less than (unqualified lookup does not occur if the name is dependent)
t->template B<void>::f(); // ok: '<' is the start of a template-argument-list ('template' keyword used)
}
};
```
Some additional notes:
- Per [basic.lookup.qual.general] p1, lookup for a
member-qualified name only considers namespaces, types, and templates
whose specializations are types if it's an _identifier_ followed by
`::`; lookup for the component name of a _simple-template-id_ followed
by `::` is _not_ subject to this rule.
- The wording which specifies when the second unqualified lookup occurs
appears to be paradoxical. We are supposed to do it only for the first
component name of a _nested-name-specifier_ that follows `.` or `->`
when qualified lookup finds nothing. However, when that name is followed
by `<` (potentially starting a _simple-template-id_) we don't _know_
whether it will be the start of a _nested-name-specifier_ until we do
the lookup -- but we aren't supposed to do the lookup until we know it's
part of a _nested-name-specifier_! ***However***, since we only do the
second lookup when the first lookup finds nothing (and the name isn't
dependent), ***and*** since neither lookup is type-only, the only valid
option is for the name to be the _template-name_ in a
_simple-template-id_ that is followed by `::` (it can't be an
_unqualified-id_ naming a member because we already determined that the
lookup context doesn't have a member with that name). Thus, we can lock
into the _nested-name-specifier_ interpretation and do the second lookup
without having to know whether the _simple-template-id_ will be followed
by `::` yet.
(and less wrong).
It's not correct to assume that X<something, Type> is always a
template-id; there are a few cases where the comma takes us into a
non-expression syntactic context in which 'Type' might be permissible.
Stop doing that.
This slightly regresses our error recovery on the cases where the
construct is intended to be a template-id. We typically do still manage
to diagnose a missing 'template' keyword, but we realize this too late
to properly recover from the error.
This fixes a regression introduced by r360308.
llvm-svn: 360827
template name is not visible to unqualified lookup.
In order to support this without a severe degradation in our ability to
diagnose typos in template names, this change significantly restructures
the way we handle template-id-shaped syntax for which lookup of the
template name finds nothing.
Instead of eagerly diagnosing an undeclared template name, we now form a
placeholder template-name representing a name that is known to not find
any templates. When the parser sees such a name, it attempts to
disambiguate whether we have a less-than comparison or a template-id.
Any diagnostics or typo-correction for the name are delayed until its
point of use.
The upshot should be a small improvement of our diagostic quality
overall: we now take more syntactic context into account when trying to
resolve an undeclared identifier on the left hand side of a '<'. In
fact, this works well enough that the backwards-compatible portion (for
an undeclared identifier rather than a lookup that finds functions but
no function templates) is enabled in all language modes.
llvm-svn: 360308
binary operator.
Factor out the checking for a comma within potential angle brackets and
also call it from contexts where we parse a comma-separated list of
arguments or initializers.
llvm-svn: 335699
We track when we see a name-shaped expression followed by a '<' token
and parse the '<' as a comparison. Then:
* if we see a token sequence that cannot possibly be an expression but
can be a template argument (in particular, a type-id) that follows
either a ',' or the '<', diagnose that the '<' was supposed to start
a template argument list, and
* if we see '>()', diagnose that the '<' was supposed to start a
template argument list.
This only changes the diagnostic for error cases, and in practice
appears to catch the most common cases where a missing 'template'
keyword leads to parse errors within a template.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48571
llvm-svn: 335687
template is valid with or without it (with different meanings).
If we see "dependent.x<...", and what follows the '<' is a valid expression,
we must parse the '<' as a comparison rather than a template angle bracket.
When we later come to instantiate, if we find that the LHS of the '<' actually
names an overload set containing function templates, produce a diagnostic
suggesting that the 'template' keyword was missed rather than producing a
mysterious diagnostic saying that the function must be called (and pointing
at what looks to already be a function call!).
llvm-svn: 304852
DependentTemplateSpecializationType during tree transformation, retain
the NestedNameSpecifierLoc as it was used to translate the template
name, rather than reconstructing it from the template name.
Fixes PR9401.
llvm-svn: 127015
the required "template" keyword, using the same heuristics we do for
dependent template names in member access expressions, e.g.,
test/SemaTemplate/dependent-template-recover.cpp:11:8: error: use 'template'
keyword to treat 'getAs' as a dependent template name
T::getAs<U>();
^
template
Fixes PR5404.
llvm-svn: 104409
that is missing the 'template' keyword, e.g.,
t->getAs<T>()
where getAs is a member of an unknown specialization. C++ requires
that we treat "getAs" as a value, but that would fail to parse since T
is the name of a type. We would then fail at the '>', since a type
cannot be followed by a '>'.
This is a very common error for C++ programmers to make, especially
since GCC occasionally allows it when it shouldn't (as does Visual
C++). So, when we are in this case, we use tentative parsing to see if
the tokens starting at "<" can only be parsed as a template argument
list. If so, we produce a diagnostic with a fix-it that states that
the 'template' keyword is needed:
test/SemaTemplate/dependent-template-recover.cpp:5:8: error: 'template' keyword
is required to treat 'getAs' as a dependent template name
t->getAs<T>();
^
template
This is just a start of this patch; I'd like to apply the same
approach to everywhere that a template-id with dependent template name
can be parsed.
llvm-svn: 104406
