[Clang] Mark declarators invalid in the presence of ill-formed explicit parameters.

[cor3ntin]

To avoid crashes later in sema.

Fixes #69962
Fixes #69838

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang

Author: cor3ntin (cor3ntin)

Changes

To avoid crashes later in sema.

Fixes #69962
Fixes #69838

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70018.diff

2 Files Affected:

• (modified) clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp (+6-1)
• (modified) clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2b-deducing-this.cpp (+43)

diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp
index 0193e476b3a781b..898758502e51bde 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp
@@ -11352,12 +11352,14 @@ void Sema::CheckExplicitObjectMemberFunction(Declarator &D,
     Diag(ExplicitObjectParam->getBeginLoc(),
          diag::err_explicit_object_parameter_nonmember)
         << D.getSourceRange() << /*static=*/0 << IsLambda;
+    D.setInvalidType();
   }
 
   if (D.getDeclSpec().isVirtualSpecified()) {
     Diag(ExplicitObjectParam->getBeginLoc(),
          diag::err_explicit_object_parameter_nonmember)
         << D.getSourceRange() << /*virtual=*/1 << IsLambda;
+    D.setInvalidType();
   }
 
   if (IsLambda && FTI.hasMutableQualifier()) {
@@ -11373,16 +11375,19 @@ void Sema::CheckExplicitObjectMemberFunction(Declarator &D,
     Diag(ExplicitObjectParam->getLocation(),
          diag::err_explicit_object_parameter_nonmember)
         << D.getSourceRange() << /*non-member=*/2 << IsLambda;
+    D.setInvalidType();
     return;
   }
 
   // CWG2674: constructors and destructors cannot have explicit parameters.
   if (Name.getNameKind() == DeclarationName::CXXConstructorName ||
-      Name.getNameKind() == DeclarationName::CXXDestructorName)
+      Name.getNameKind() == DeclarationName::CXXDestructorName) {
     Diag(ExplicitObjectParam->getBeginLoc(),
          diag::err_explicit_object_parameter_constructor)
         << (Name.getNameKind() == DeclarationName::CXXDestructorName)
         << D.getSourceRange();
+    D.setInvalidType();
+  }
 }
 
 namespace {
diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2b-deducing-this.cpp b/clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2b-deducing-this.cpp
index cb83270752443ad..535381e876da9c7 100644
--- a/clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2b-deducing-this.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2b-deducing-this.cpp
@@ -542,3 +542,46 @@ void foo(C c) {
 }
 
 }
+
+
+namespace GH69838 {
+struct S {
+  S(this auto &self) {} // expected-error {{an explicit object parameter cannot appear in a constructor}}
+  virtual void f(this S self) {} // expected-error {{an explicit object parameter cannot appear in a virtual function}}
+  void g(this auto &self) const {} // expected-error {{explicit object member function cannot have 'const' qualifier}}
+  void h(this S self = S{}) {} // expected-error {{the explicit object parameter cannot have a default argument}}
+  void i(int i, this S self = S{}) {} // expected-error {{an explicit object parameter can only appear as the first parameter of the function}}
+  ~S(this S &&self); // expected-error {{an explicit object parameter cannot appear in a destructor}} \
+                     // expected-error {{destructor cannot have any parameters}}
+
+  static void j(this S s); // expected-error {{an explicit object parameter cannot appear in a static function}}
+};
+
+void nonmember(this S s); // expected-error {{an explicit object parameter cannot appear in a non-member function}}
+
+int test() {
+  S s;
+  s.f();
+  s.g();
+  s.h();
+  s.i(0);
+  s.j({});
+  nonmember(S{});
+}
+
+}
+
+namespace GH69962 {
+struct S {
+    S(const S&);
+};
+
+struct Thing {
+    template<typename Self, typename ... Args>
+    Thing(this Self&& self, Args&& ... args) { } // expected-error {{an explicit object parameter cannot appear in a constructor}}
+};
+
+class Server : public Thing {
+    S name_;
+};
+}

[Fznamznon]

Is there no release note because there is no release that supports explicit object parameters yet?

[cor3ntin]

Is there no release note because there is no release that supports explicit object parameters yet?

Exactly, yes!

[AaronBallman]

LGTM!

[Endilll]

DR test part of this PR looks fine to me.

[shafik]

You could add static here for extra fun.