This reverts commit b8064374b217db061213c561ec8f3376681ff9c8.
Based on the report here:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/59271
this produces a significant increase in memory use of the compiler and a
large compile-time regression. This patch reverts this so that we don't
branch for release with that issue.
> Dependent access checks.
Fixes: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53364
We previously ignored dependent access checks to private members.
These are visible only to the `RequiresExprBodyExpr` (through `PerformDependentDiagnositcs`) and not to the individual requirements.
---
> Non-dependent access checks.
Fixes: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53334
Access to members in a non-dependent context would always yield an
invalid expression. When it appears in a requires-expression, then this
is a hard error as this would always result in a substitution failure.
https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.prim.req#general-note-1
> Note 1: If a requires-expression contains invalid types or expressions in its requirements, and it does not appear within the declaration of a templated entity, then the program is ill-formed. — end note]
> If the substitution of template arguments into a requirement would always result in a substitution failure, the program is ill-formed; no diagnostic required.
The main issue here is the delaying of the diagnostics.
Use a `ParsingDeclRAIIObject` creates a separate diagnostic pool for diagnositcs associated to the `RequiresExprBodyDecl`.
This is important because dependent diagnostics should not be leaked/delayed to higher scopes (Eg. inside a template function or in a trailing requires). These dependent diagnostics must be attached to the `DeclContext` of the parameters of `RequiresExpr` (which is the `RequiresExprBodyDecl` in this case).
Non dependent diagnostics, on the other hand, should not delayed and surfaced as hard errors.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D140547
Since we don't unique specializations for concepts, we can just instantiate
them with the sugared template arguments, at negligible cost.
If we don't track their specializations, we can't resugar them later
anyway, and that would be more expensive than just instantiating them
sugared in the first place since it would require an additional pass.
Signed-off-by: Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D136566
Since we don't unique specializations for concepts, we can just instantiate
them with the sugared template arguments, at negligible cost.
If we don't track their specializations, we can't resugar them later
anyway, and that would be more expensive than just instantiating them
sugared in the first place since it would require an additional pass.
Signed-off-by: Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov@gmail.com>
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D136566
requires-expression
As reported: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/57487
We properly treated a failed instantiation of a concept as a
unsatisified constraint, however, we need to do this at the 'requires
clause' level as well. This ensures that the parameters on a requires
clause that fail instantiation will cause a satisfaction failure.
This patch implements this by running requires parameter clause
instantiation under a SFINAE trap, then stores any such failure as a
requirement failure, so it can be diagnosed later.
This patch implements P0634r3 that removes the need for 'typename' in certain contexts.
For example,
```
template <typename T>
using foo = T::type; // ok
```
This is also allowed in previous language versions as an extension, because I think it's pretty useful. :)
Reviewed By: #clang-language-wg, erichkeane
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53847
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 6542cb55a3eb115b1c3592514590a19987ffc498.
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 b7e77ff25fb2412f6ab6d6cc756666b0e2f97bd3.
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
Given a dependent `T` (maybe an undeduced `auto`),
Before:
new T(z) --> new T((z)) # changes meaning with more args
new T{z} --> new T{z}
T(z) --> T(z)
T{z} --> T({z}) # forbidden if T is auto
After:
new T(z) --> new T(z)
new T{z} --> new T{z}
T(z) --> T(z)
T{z} --> T{z}
Depends on D113393
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D120608
See PR48656.
The implementation of the template instantiation of requires expressions
was incorrectly trying to get the expression from an 'ExprRequirement'
before checking if it was an error state.
Signed-off-by: Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov@gmail.com>
Reviewed By: rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107399
See PR45088.
Compound requirement type constraints were using decltype(E) instead of
decltype((E)), as per `[expr.prim.req]p1.3.3`.
Since neither instantiation nor type dependence should matter for
the constraints, this uses an approach where a `decltype` type is not built,
and just the canonical type of the expression after template instantiation
is used on the requirement.
Signed-off-by: Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov@gmail.com>
Reviewed By: rsmith
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98160
Summary:
Before this PR, `modernize-use-using` would transform the typedef in
```
template <typename a> class TemplateKeyword {
typedef typename a::template f<> e;
typedef typename a::template f<>::d e2;
};
```
into
```
template <typename a> class TemplateKeyword {
using d = typename a::b<>;
using d2 = typename a::template a::b<>::c;
};
```
The first one is missing the `template` keyword,
the second one has an extra `a::` scope. Both result
in compilation errors.
Reviewers: aaron.ballman, alexfh, hokein, njames93
Subscribers: xazax.hun, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78139
As per P1980R0, constraint expressions are unevaluated operands, and their constituent atomic
constraints only become constant evaluated during satisfaction checking.
Change the evaluation context during parsing and instantiation of constraints to unevaluated.
Now with concepts support merged and mostly complete, we do not need -fconcepts-ts
(which was also misleading as we were not implementing the TS) and can enable
concepts features under C++2a. A warning will be generated if users still attempt
to use -fconcepts-ts.
Implement support for C++2a requires-expressions.
Re-commit after compilation failure on some platforms due to alignment issues with PointerIntPair.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50360
