Revert "Reapply "[Clang] Implement resolution for CWG1835 (#92957)" (#98547)"

This reverts commit ce4aada6e2135e29839f672a6599db628b53295d and a
follow-up patch 8ef26f1289bf069ccc0d6383f2f4c0116a120

Revert "Reapply "[Clang] Implement resolution for CWG1835 (#92957)" (#98547)"

This reverts commit ce4aada6e2135e29839f672a6599db628b53295d and a
follow-up patch 8ef26f1289bf069ccc0d6383f2f4c0116a1206c1.

This new warning can not be fully suppressed by the
`-Wno-missing-dependent-template-keyword` flag, this gives developer no
time to do the cleanup in a large codebase, see https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98547#issuecomment-2228250884

show more ...

Reapply "[Clang] Implement resolution for CWG1835 (#92957)" (#98547)

Reapplies #92957, fixing an instance where the `template` keyword was
missing prior to a dependent name in `llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h`

Reapply "[Clang] Implement resolution for CWG1835 (#92957)" (#98547)

Reapplies #92957, fixing an instance where the `template` keyword was
missing prior to a dependent name in `llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h`. An
_alias-declaration_ is used to work around a bug affecting GCC releases
before 11.1 (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94799) which
rejects the use of the `template` keyword prior to the
_nested-name-specifier_ in the class member access.

show more ...

Revert "[Clang] Implement resolution for CWG1835 (#92957)"

ppc64le-lld-multistage-test has been failing.

This reverts commit 7bfb98c34687d9784f36937c3ff3e735698b498a.

[Clang] Implement resolution for CWG1835 (#92957)

CWG1835 was one of the many core issues resolved by P1787R6: "Declarations and where to
find them" (http://wg21.link/p1787r6). Its resolution chang

[Clang] Implement resolution for CWG1835 (#92957)

CWG1835 was one of the many core issues resolved by P1787R6: "Declarations and where to
find them" (http://wg21.link/p1787r6). Its resolution changes how
member-qualified names (as defined by [basic.lookup.qual.general] p2) are looked
up. This patch implementation that resolution.

Previously, an _identifier_ following `.` or `->` would be first looked
up in the type of the object expression (i.e. qualified lookup), and
then in the context of the _postfix-expression_ (i.e. unqualified
lookup) if nothing was found; the result of the second lookup was
required to name a class template. Notably, this second lookup would
occur even when the object expression was dependent, and its result
would be used to determine whether a `<` token is the start of a
_template-argument_list_.

The new wording in [basic.lookup.qual.general] p2 states:
> A member-qualified name is the (unique) component name, if any, of
> - an _unqualified-id_ or
> - a _nested-name-specifier_ of the form _`type-name ::`_ or
_`namespace-name ::`​_
>
> in the id-expression of a class member access expression. A
***qualified name*** is
> - a member-qualified name or
> - the terminal name of
> - a _qualified-id_,
> - a _using-declarator_,
> - a _typename-specifier_,
> - a _qualified-namespace-specifier_, or
> - a _nested-name-specifier_, _elaborated-type-specifier_, or
_class-or-decltype_ that has a _nested-name-specifier_.
>
> The _lookup context_ of a member-qualified name is the type of its
associated object expression (considered dependent if the object
expression is type-dependent). The lookup context of any other qualified
name is the type, template, or namespace nominated by the preceding
_nested-name-specifier_.

And [basic.lookup.qual.general] p3 now states:
> _Qualified name lookup_ in a class, namespace, or enumeration performs
a search of the scope associated with it except as specified below.
Unless otherwise specified, a qualified name undergoes qualified name
lookup in its lookup context from the point where it appears unless the
lookup context either is dependent and is not the current instantiation
or is not a class or class template. If nothing is found by qualified
lookup for a member-qualified name that is the terminal name of a
_nested-name-specifier_ and is not dependent, it undergoes unqualified
lookup.

In non-standardese terms, these two paragraphs essentially state the
following:
- A name that immediately follows `.` or `->` in a class member access
expression is a member-qualified name
- A member-qualified name will be first looked up in the type of the
object expression `T` unless `T` is a dependent type that is _not_ the
current instantiation, e.g.
```
template<typename T>
struct A
{
void f(T* t)
{
this->x; // type of the object expression is 'A<T>'. although 'A<T>' is dependent, it is the
// current instantiation so we look up 'x' in the template definition context.

t->y; // type of the object expression is 'T' ('->' is transformed to '.' per [expr.ref]).
// 'T' is dependent and is *not* the current instantiation, so we lookup 'y' in the
// template instantiation context.
}
};
```
- If the first lookup finds nothing and:
- the member-qualified name is the first component of a
_nested-name-specifier_ (which could be an _identifier_ or a
_simple-template-id_), and either:
- the type of the object expression is the current instantiation and it
has no dependent base classes, or
- the type of the object expression is not dependent

then we lookup the name again, this time via unqualified lookup.

Although the second (unqualified) lookup is stated not to occur when the
member-qualified name is dependent, a dependent name will _not_ be
dependent once the template is instantiated, so the second lookup must
"occur" during instantiation if qualified lookup does not find anything.
This means that we must perform the second (unqualified) lookup during
parsing even when the type of the object expression is dependent, but
those results are _not_ used to determine whether a `<` token is the
start of a _template-argument_list_; they are stored so we can replicate
the second lookup during instantiation.

In even simpler terms (paraphrasing the meeting minutes from the review of P1787; see https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21summer2020/P1787%28Lookup%29Review2020-06-15Through2020-06-18):
- Unqualified lookup always happens for the first name in a
_nested-name-specifier_ that follows `.` or `->`
- The result of that lookup is only used to determine whether `<` is the
start of a _template-argument-list_ if the first (qualified) lookup
found nothing and the lookup context:
- is not dependent, or
- is the current instantiation and has no dependent base classes.

An example:
```
struct A
{
void f();
};

template<typename T>
using B = A;

template<typename T>
struct C : A
{
template<typename U>
void g();

void h(T* t)
{
this->g<int>(); // ok, '<' is the start of a template-argument-list ('g' was found via qualified lookup in the current instantiation)
this->B<void>::f(); // ok, '<' is the start of a template-argument-list (current instantiation has no dependent bases, 'B' was found via unqualified lookup)
t->g<int>(); // error: '<' means less than (unqualified lookup does not occur for a member-qualified name that isn't the first component of a nested-name-specifier)
t->B<void>::f(); // error: '<' means less than (unqualified lookup does not occur if the name is dependent)
t->template B<void>::f(); // ok: '<' is the start of a template-argument-list ('template' keyword used)
}
};
```

Some additional notes:
- Per [basic.lookup.qual.general] p1, lookup for a
member-qualified name only considers namespaces, types, and templates
whose specializations are types if it's an _identifier_ followed by
`::`; lookup for the component name of a _simple-template-id_ followed
by `::` is _not_ subject to this rule.
- The wording which specifies when the second unqualified lookup occurs
appears to be paradoxical. We are supposed to do it only for the first
component name of a _nested-name-specifier_ that follows `.` or `->`
when qualified lookup finds nothing. However, when that name is followed
by `<` (potentially starting a _simple-template-id_) we don't _know_
whether it will be the start of a _nested-name-specifier_ until we do
the lookup -- but we aren't supposed to do the lookup until we know it's
part of a _nested-name-specifier_! ***However***, since we only do the
second lookup when the first lookup finds nothing (and the name isn't
dependent), ***and*** since neither lookup is type-only, the only valid
option is for the name to be the _template-name_ in a
_simple-template-id_ that is followed by `::` (it can't be an
_unqualified-id_ naming a member because we already determined that the
lookup context doesn't have a member with that name). Thus, we can lock
into the _nested-name-specifier_ interpretation and do the second lookup
without having to know whether the _simple-template-id_ will be followed
by `::` yet.

show more ...

[clang][sema] Print more information about failed static assertions

For failed static assertions, try to take the expression apart and print
useful information about why it failed. In particular, lo

[clang][sema] Print more information about failed static assertions

For failed static assertions, try to take the expression apart and print
useful information about why it failed. In particular, look at binary
operators and print the compile-time evaluated value of the LHS/RHS.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130894

show more ...

Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics

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 b

Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics

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

show more ...

Revert "Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion"

Looks like we again are going to have problems with libcxx tests that
are overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.

This

Revert "Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion"

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.

show more ...

Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion

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 n

Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion

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

show more ...

Revert "Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics"

This reverts commit b7e77ff25fb2412f6ab6d6cc756666b0e2f97bd3.

Reason: Broke sanitizer builds bots + libcxx. 'static assertion
expression is not an int

Revert "Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics"

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

show more ...

Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics

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 b

Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics

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

show more ...

Recommit: Compress formatting of array type names (int [4] -> int[4])

Based on post-commit review discussion on
2bd84938470bf2e337801faafb8a67710f46429d with Richard Smith.

Other uses of forcing Ha

Recommit: Compress formatting of array type names (int [4] -> int[4])

Based on post-commit review discussion on
2bd84938470bf2e337801faafb8a67710f46429d with Richard Smith.

Other uses of forcing HasEmptyPlaceHolder to false seem OK to me -
they're all around pointer/reference types where the pointer/reference
token will appear at the rightmost side of the left side of the type
name, so they make nested types (eg: the "int" in "int *") behave as
though there is a non-empty placeholder (because the "*" is essentially
the placeholder as far as the "int" is concerned).

This was originally committed in 277623f4d5a672d707390e2c3eaf30a9eb4b075c

Reverted in f9ad1d1c775a8e264bebc15d75e0c6e5c20eefc7 due to breakages
outside of clang - lldb seems to have some strange/strong dependence on
"char [N]" versus "char[N]" when printing strings (not due to that name
appearing in DWARF, but probably due to using clang to stringify type
names) that'll need to be addressed, plus a few other odds and ends in
other subprojects (clang-tools-extra, compiler-rt, etc).

show more ...

Revert "Compress formatting of array type names (int [4] -> int[4])"

Looks like lldb has some issues with this - somehow it causes lldb to
treat a "char[N]" type as an array of chars (prints them ou

Revert "Compress formatting of array type names (int [4] -> int[4])"

Looks like lldb has some issues with this - somehow it causes lldb to
treat a "char[N]" type as an array of chars (prints them out
individually) but a "char [N]" is printed as a string. (even though the
DWARF doesn't have this string in it - it's something to do with the
string lldb generates for itself using clang)

This reverts commit 277623f4d5a672d707390e2c3eaf30a9eb4b075c.

show more ...

Compress formatting of array type names (int [4] -> int[4])

Based on post-commit review discussion on
2bd84938470bf2e337801faafb8a67710f46429d with Richard Smith.

Other uses of forcing HasEmptyPlac

Compress formatting of array type names (int [4] -> int[4])

Based on post-commit review discussion on
2bd84938470bf2e337801faafb8a67710f46429d with Richard Smith.

Other uses of forcing HasEmptyPlaceHolder to false seem OK to me -
they're all around pointer/reference types where the pointer/reference
token will appear at the rightmost side of the left side of the type
name, so they make nested types (eg: the "int" in "int *") behave as
though there is a non-empty placeholder (because the "*" is essentially
the placeholder as far as the "int" is concerned).

show more ...

Improve type printing of const arrays to normalize array-of-const and const-array

Since these map to the same effective type - render them the same/in the
more legible way (const x[n]).

[Sema][NFC] Add test for static_assert diagnistics with constexpr template functions.

llvm-svn: 349755

[Sema] Better static assert diagnostics for expressions involving temporaries/casts/....

Summary:
Handles expressions such as:
- `std::is_const<T>()`
- `std::is_const<T>()()`;
- `std::is_same(dec

[Sema] Better static assert diagnostics for expressions involving temporaries/casts/....

Summary:
Handles expressions such as:
- `std::is_const<T>()`
- `std::is_const<T>()()`;
- `std::is_same(decltype(U()), V>::value`;

Reviewers: aaron.ballman, Quuxplusone

Subscribers: cfe-commits, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55552

llvm-svn: 349729

show more ...

Reland r348741 "[Sema] Further improvements to to static_assert diagnostics."

Fix a dangling reference to temporary, never return nullptr.

llvm-svn: 348834

Revert r348741 "[Sema] Further improvements to to static_assert diagnostics."

Seems to break build bots.

llvm-svn: 348742

[Sema] Further improvements to to static_assert diagnostics.

Summary:
We're now handling cases like `static_assert(!expr)` and
static_assert(!(expr))`.

Reviewers: aaron.ballman, Quuxplusone

Subscr

[Sema] Further improvements to to static_assert diagnostics.

Summary:
We're now handling cases like `static_assert(!expr)` and
static_assert(!(expr))`.

Reviewers: aaron.ballman, Quuxplusone

Subscribers: cfe-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55270

llvm-svn: 348741

show more ...

[WIP][Sema] Improve static_assert diagnostics for type traits.

Summary:
In our codebase, `static_assert(std::some_type_trait<Ts...>::value, "msg")`
(where `some_type_trait` is an std type_trait and

[WIP][Sema] Improve static_assert diagnostics for type traits.

Summary:
In our codebase, `static_assert(std::some_type_trait<Ts...>::value, "msg")`
(where `some_type_trait` is an std type_trait and `Ts...` is the
appropriate template parameters) account for 11.2% of the `static_assert`s.

In these cases, the `Ts` are typically not spelled out explicitly, e.g.
`static_assert(std::is_same<SomeT::TypeT, typename SomeDependentT::value_type>::value, "message");`

The diagnostic when the assert fails is typically not very useful, e.g.
`static_assert failed due to requirement 'std::is_same<SomeT::TypeT, typename SomeDependentT::value_type>::value' "message"`

This change makes the diagnostic spell out the types explicitly , e.g.
`static_assert failed due to requirement 'std::is_same<int, float>::value' "message"`

See tests for more examples.

After this is submitted, I intend to handle
`static_assert(!std::some_type_trait<Ts...>::value, "msg")`,
which is another 6.6% of static_asserts.

Subscribers: cfe-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54903

llvm-svn: 348239

show more ...