-
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
Reapply "[Clang][Sema] Diagnose unexpanded packs in the template argument lists of function template specializations" (#76876) #76915
Conversation
…ment lists of function template specializations" (llvm#76876)
Ping @erichkeane |
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Krystian Stasiowski (sdkrystian) ChangesThis 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. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76915.diff 4 Files Affected:
diff --git a/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-doc/templates.cpp b/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-doc/templates.cpp
index eb7f4599629f48..2e04a77ac9e621 100644
--- a/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-doc/templates.cpp
+++ b/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-doc/templates.cpp
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
// RUN: rm -rf %t
template<typename T, int U = 1>
-void function<bool, 0>(T x) {}
+void function(T x) {}
template<>
void function<bool, 0>(bool x) {}
diff --git a/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst b/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
index a3107c4a695321..778ce0e0e52d06 100644
--- a/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
+++ b/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
@@ -518,6 +518,7 @@ 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 2de631941325fa..8e46c4984d93dc 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(),
- D.getName().getKind() == UnqualifiedIdKind::IK_TemplateId
- ? D.getName().TemplateId
- : nullptr,
- TemplateParamLists, isFriend, isMemberSpecialization,
- Invalid);
+ D.getCXXScopeSpec(), TemplateId, TemplateParamLists, isFriend,
+ isMemberSpecialization, Invalid);
if (TemplateParams) {
// Check that we can declare a template here.
if (CheckTemplateDeclScope(S, TemplateParams))
@@ -9921,6 +9921,11 @@ 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
@@ -9973,6 +9978,11 @@ 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 {
@@ -9986,6 +9996,33 @@ 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) {
@@ -10438,46 +10475,6 @@ 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 30ce6b40e1fb5f..3c500c2c4dc4a7 100644
--- a/clang/test/CXX/temp/temp.decls/temp.variadic/p5.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/CXX/temp/temp.decls/temp.variadic/p5.cpp
@@ -376,6 +376,11 @@ 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;
@@ -392,6 +397,13 @@ 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;
|
@cor3ntin @erichkeane if either of you could merge that that would be appreciated :) |
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.