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.
Due to d0d2ee0e4bbe915d649e983c12d37bcfcf58823c clang doesn't perform
qualified name lookup into the current instantiation when it has
dependent bases, because of that `getTypeName` call always returns null
for unknown specialization case. When there is a `typename` keyword,
`DependentNameType` is constructed instead of simply returning null.
This change attempts to do the same in case of `typename` absence.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/13826
same type in multiple base classes.
Not even if the type is introduced by distinct declarations (for
example, two typedef declarations, or a typedef and a class definition).
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
For 'x::template y', consistently give a "no member named 'y' in 'x'"
diagnostic if there is no such member, and give a 'template keyword not
followed by a template' name error if there is such a member but it's not a
template. In the latter case, add a note pointing at the non-template.
Don't suggest inserting a 'template' keyword in 'X::Y<' if X is dependent
if the lookup of X::Y was actually not a dependent lookup and found only
non-templates.
llvm-svn: 332076
of a binary expression, continue on and parse the right-hand side of
the binary expression anyway, but don't call the semantic actions to
type-check. Previously, we would see the error and then, effectively,
skip tokens until the end of the statement.
The result should be more useful recovery, both in the normal case
(we'll actually see errors beyond the first one in a statement), but
it also helps code completion do a much better job, because we do
"real" code completion on the right-hand side of an invalid binary
expression rather than completing with the recovery completion. For
example, given
x = p->y
if there is no variable named "x", we can still complete after the p->
as a member expression. Along the recovery path, we would have
completed after the "->" as if we were in an expression context, which
is mostly useless.
llvm-svn: 114225
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
nested-name-specifier (e.g., "class T::foo") fails to find a tag
member in the scope nominated by the
nested-name-specifier. Previously, we gave a bland
error: 'Nested' does not name a tag member in the specified scope
which didn't actually say where we were looking, which was rather
horrible when the nested-name-specifier was instantiated. Now, we give
something a bit better:
error: no class named 'Nested' in 'NoDepBase<T>'
llvm-svn: 100060
therefore not creating ElaboratedTypes, which are still pretty-printed
with the written tag).
Most of these testcase changes were done by script, so don't feel too
sorry for my fingers.
llvm-svn: 98149
propagating error conditions out of the various annotate-me-a-snowflake
routines. Generally (but not universally) removes redundant diagnostics
as well as, you know, not crashing on bad code. On the other hand,
I have just signed myself up to fix fiddly parser errors for the next
week. Again.
llvm-svn: 97221
in a member access expression referring into the current instantiation
need not be resolved at template definition *if* the current
instantiation has any dependent base classes. Fixes PR6081.
llvm-svn: 93877
do not look into base classes if there are any dependent base
classes. Instead, note in the lookup result that we couldn't look into
any dependent bases. Use that new result kind to detect when this case
occurs, so that we can fall back to treating the type/value/etc. as a
member of an unknown specialization.
Fixes an issue where we were resolving lookup at template definition
time and then missing an ambiguity at template instantiation time.
llvm-svn: 93497
finds nothing), and the current instantiation has dependent base
classes, treat the qualified lookup as if it referred to an unknown
specialization. Fixes PR6031.
llvm-svn: 93433
name a template, when they occur in a base-specifier. This is one of
the (few) places where we know for sure that an identifier followed by
a '<' must be a template name, so we can diagnose and recover well:
test/SemaTemplate/dependent-base-classes.cpp:9:16: error: missing
'template'
keyword prior to dependent template name 'T::apply'
struct X1 : T::apply<U> { }; // expected-error{{missing 'template' ...
^
template
test/SemaTemplate/dependent-base-classes.cpp:12:13: error: unknown
template name
'vector'
struct X2 : vector<T> { }; // expected-error{{unknown template name
'vector'}}
^
2 diagnostics generated.
llvm-svn: 93257
initializers. This isn't actually in the C++ grammar (in any version),
but that's clearly an oversight: both GCC and EDG support this syntax,
and it's used within Boost code. I'll file a core issue proposing
precisely the change made here. Fixes PR6008.
llvm-svn: 93243
