-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Revert "[Clang][Sema] Diagnose unexpanded packs in the template argument lists of function template specializations" #76876
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
llvmbot
added
clang
Clang issues not falling into any other category
clang:frontend
Language frontend issues, e.g. anything involving "Sema"
labels
Jan 3, 2024
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Erich Keane (erichkeane) ChangesReverts llvm/llvm-project#76677 See discussion here: #76677 Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76876.diff 3 Files Affected:
diff --git a/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst b/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
index 778ce0e0e52d06..a3107c4a695321 100644
--- a/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
+++ b/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
@@ -518,7 +518,6 @@ Improvements to Clang's diagnostics
- Clang now diagnoses definitions of friend function specializations, e.g. ``friend void f<>(int) {}``.
- Clang now diagnoses narrowing conversions involving const references.
(`#63151: <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/63151>`_).
-- Clang now diagnoses unexpanded packs within the template argument lists of function template specializations.
Improvements to Clang's time-trace
diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
index 8e46c4984d93dc..2de631941325fa 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
@@ -9900,15 +9900,15 @@ Sema::ActOnFunctionDeclarator(Scope *S, Declarator &D, DeclContext *DC,
// Match up the template parameter lists with the scope specifier, then
// determine whether we have a template or a template specialization.
bool Invalid = false;
- TemplateIdAnnotation *TemplateId =
- D.getName().getKind() == UnqualifiedIdKind::IK_TemplateId
- ? D.getName().TemplateId
- : nullptr;
TemplateParameterList *TemplateParams =
MatchTemplateParametersToScopeSpecifier(
D.getDeclSpec().getBeginLoc(), D.getIdentifierLoc(),
- D.getCXXScopeSpec(), TemplateId, TemplateParamLists, isFriend,
- isMemberSpecialization, Invalid);
+ D.getCXXScopeSpec(),
+ D.getName().getKind() == UnqualifiedIdKind::IK_TemplateId
+ ? D.getName().TemplateId
+ : nullptr,
+ TemplateParamLists, isFriend, isMemberSpecialization,
+ Invalid);
if (TemplateParams) {
// Check that we can declare a template here.
if (CheckTemplateDeclScope(S, TemplateParams))
@@ -9921,11 +9921,6 @@ Sema::ActOnFunctionDeclarator(Scope *S, Declarator &D, DeclContext *DC,
if (Name.getNameKind() == DeclarationName::CXXDestructorName) {
Diag(NewFD->getLocation(), diag::err_destructor_template);
NewFD->setInvalidDecl();
- // Function template with explicit template arguments.
- } else if (TemplateId) {
- Diag(D.getIdentifierLoc(), diag::err_function_template_partial_spec)
- << SourceRange(TemplateId->LAngleLoc, TemplateId->RAngleLoc);
- NewFD->setInvalidDecl();
}
// If we're adding a template to a dependent context, we may need to
@@ -9978,11 +9973,6 @@ Sema::ActOnFunctionDeclarator(Scope *S, Declarator &D, DeclContext *DC,
<< FixItHint::CreateRemoval(RemoveRange)
<< FixItHint::CreateInsertion(InsertLoc, "<>");
Invalid = true;
-
- // Recover by faking up an empty template argument list.
- HasExplicitTemplateArgs = true;
- TemplateArgs.setLAngleLoc(InsertLoc);
- TemplateArgs.setRAngleLoc(InsertLoc);
}
}
} else {
@@ -9996,33 +9986,6 @@ Sema::ActOnFunctionDeclarator(Scope *S, Declarator &D, DeclContext *DC,
if (TemplateParamLists.size() > 0)
// For source fidelity, store all the template param lists.
NewFD->setTemplateParameterListsInfo(Context, TemplateParamLists);
-
- // "friend void foo<>(int);" is an implicit specialization decl.
- if (isFriend && TemplateId)
- isFunctionTemplateSpecialization = true;
- }
-
- // If this is a function template specialization and the unqualified-id of
- // the declarator-id is a template-id, convert the template argument list
- // into our AST format and check for unexpanded packs.
- if (isFunctionTemplateSpecialization && TemplateId) {
- HasExplicitTemplateArgs = true;
-
- TemplateArgs.setLAngleLoc(TemplateId->LAngleLoc);
- TemplateArgs.setRAngleLoc(TemplateId->RAngleLoc);
- ASTTemplateArgsPtr TemplateArgsPtr(TemplateId->getTemplateArgs(),
- TemplateId->NumArgs);
- translateTemplateArguments(TemplateArgsPtr, TemplateArgs);
-
- // FIXME: Should we check for unexpanded packs if this was an (invalid)
- // declaration of a function template partial specialization? Should we
- // consider the unexpanded pack context to be a partial specialization?
- for (const TemplateArgumentLoc &ArgLoc : TemplateArgs.arguments()) {
- if (DiagnoseUnexpandedParameterPack(
- ArgLoc, isFriend ? UPPC_FriendDeclaration
- : UPPC_ExplicitSpecialization))
- NewFD->setInvalidDecl();
- }
}
if (Invalid) {
@@ -10475,6 +10438,46 @@ Sema::ActOnFunctionDeclarator(Scope *S, Declarator &D, DeclContext *DC,
diag::ext_operator_new_delete_declared_inline)
<< NewFD->getDeclName();
+ // If the declarator is a template-id, translate the parser's template
+ // argument list into our AST format.
+ if (D.getName().getKind() == UnqualifiedIdKind::IK_TemplateId) {
+ TemplateIdAnnotation *TemplateId = D.getName().TemplateId;
+ TemplateArgs.setLAngleLoc(TemplateId->LAngleLoc);
+ TemplateArgs.setRAngleLoc(TemplateId->RAngleLoc);
+ ASTTemplateArgsPtr TemplateArgsPtr(TemplateId->getTemplateArgs(),
+ TemplateId->NumArgs);
+ translateTemplateArguments(TemplateArgsPtr,
+ TemplateArgs);
+
+ HasExplicitTemplateArgs = true;
+
+ if (NewFD->isInvalidDecl()) {
+ HasExplicitTemplateArgs = false;
+ } else if (FunctionTemplate) {
+ // Function template with explicit template arguments.
+ Diag(D.getIdentifierLoc(), diag::err_function_template_partial_spec)
+ << SourceRange(TemplateId->LAngleLoc, TemplateId->RAngleLoc);
+
+ HasExplicitTemplateArgs = false;
+ } else if (isFriend) {
+ // "friend void foo<>(int);" is an implicit specialization decl.
+ isFunctionTemplateSpecialization = true;
+ } else {
+ assert(isFunctionTemplateSpecialization &&
+ "should have a 'template<>' for this decl");
+ }
+ } else if (isFriend && isFunctionTemplateSpecialization) {
+ // This combination is only possible in a recovery case; the user
+ // wrote something like:
+ // template <> friend void foo(int);
+ // which we're recovering from as if the user had written:
+ // friend void foo<>(int);
+ // Go ahead and fake up a template id.
+ HasExplicitTemplateArgs = true;
+ TemplateArgs.setLAngleLoc(D.getIdentifierLoc());
+ TemplateArgs.setRAngleLoc(D.getIdentifierLoc());
+ }
+
// We do not add HD attributes to specializations here because
// they may have different constexpr-ness compared to their
// templates and, after maybeAddCUDAHostDeviceAttrs() is applied,
diff --git a/clang/test/CXX/temp/temp.decls/temp.variadic/p5.cpp b/clang/test/CXX/temp/temp.decls/temp.variadic/p5.cpp
index 3c500c2c4dc4a7..30ce6b40e1fb5f 100644
--- a/clang/test/CXX/temp/temp.decls/temp.variadic/p5.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/CXX/temp/temp.decls/temp.variadic/p5.cpp
@@ -376,11 +376,6 @@ namespace Specializations {
template<typename... Ts>
struct PrimaryClass<Ts>; // expected-error{{partial specialization contains unexpanded parameter pack 'Ts'}}
- template<typename T, typename... Ts>
- void PrimaryFunction();
- template<typename T, typename... Ts>
- void PrimaryFunction<Ts>(); // expected-error{{function template partial specialization is not allowed}}
-
#if __cplusplus >= 201402L
template<typename T, typename... Ts>
constexpr int PrimaryVar = 0;
@@ -397,13 +392,6 @@ namespace Specializations {
template<typename U>
struct InnerClass<U, Ts>; // expected-error{{partial specialization contains unexpanded parameter pack 'Ts'}}
- template<typename... Us>
- void InnerFunction();
- template<>
- void InnerFunction<Ts>(); // expected-error{{explicit specialization contains unexpanded parameter pack 'Ts'}}
-
- friend void PrimaryFunction<Ts>(); // expected-error{{friend declaration contains unexpanded parameter pack 'Ts'}}
-
#if __cplusplus >= 201402L
template<typename... Us>
constexpr static int InnerVar = 0;
|
You can test this locally with the following command:git-clang-format --diff 49b492048af2b2093aaed899c0bbd6d740aad83c 687396b5f4ba0713d103ebd172b308e92eb930cc -- clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp clang/test/CXX/temp/temp.decls/temp.variadic/p5.cpp View the diff from clang-format here.diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
index 2de6319413..211964c561 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp
@@ -9907,8 +9907,7 @@ Sema::ActOnFunctionDeclarator(Scope *S, Declarator &D, DeclContext *DC,
D.getName().getKind() == UnqualifiedIdKind::IK_TemplateId
? D.getName().TemplateId
: nullptr,
- TemplateParamLists, isFriend, isMemberSpecialization,
- Invalid);
+ TemplateParamLists, isFriend, isMemberSpecialization, Invalid);
if (TemplateParams) {
// Check that we can declare a template here.
if (CheckTemplateDeclScope(S, TemplateParams))
@@ -10446,8 +10445,7 @@ Sema::ActOnFunctionDeclarator(Scope *S, Declarator &D, DeclContext *DC,
TemplateArgs.setRAngleLoc(TemplateId->RAngleLoc);
ASTTemplateArgsPtr TemplateArgsPtr(TemplateId->getTemplateArgs(),
TemplateId->NumArgs);
- translateTemplateArguments(TemplateArgsPtr,
- TemplateArgs);
+ translateTemplateArguments(TemplateArgsPtr, TemplateArgs);
HasExplicitTemplateArgs = true;
@@ -10456,7 +10454,7 @@ Sema::ActOnFunctionDeclarator(Scope *S, Declarator &D, DeclContext *DC,
} else if (FunctionTemplate) {
// Function template with explicit template arguments.
Diag(D.getIdentifierLoc(), diag::err_function_template_partial_spec)
- << SourceRange(TemplateId->LAngleLoc, TemplateId->RAngleLoc);
+ << SourceRange(TemplateId->LAngleLoc, TemplateId->RAngleLoc);
HasExplicitTemplateArgs = false;
} else if (isFriend) {
|
sdkrystian
added a commit
to sdkrystian/llvm-project
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 4, 2024
…ment lists of function template specializations" (llvm#76876)
cor3ntin
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 4, 2024
…ment lists of function template specializations" (#76876) (#76915) This reapplies f034044 after it was reverted by 687396b due to a test failure in clang-doc. The test in question declares a partial specialization of a function template, as well as an explicit specialization of the same function template. Both declarations are now set as invalid, meaning neither is emitted by clang-doc. Since this is the sole test of function template specializations in clang-doc, I presume the intent is for the partial specialization to actually be the primary template. Doing so results in the expected output.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
clang:frontend
Language frontend issues, e.g. anything involving "Sema"
clang
Clang issues not falling into any other category
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Reverts #76677
See discussion here: #76677