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.
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
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
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
