On 9/26/21 21:31, nick huang via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi Jason,
1. Thank you very much for your detailed comments for my patch and I really
appreciate it! Here is my revised patch:
The root cause of this bug is that it considers reference with
cv-qualifiers as an error by generating value for variable "bad_quals".
However, this is not correct for case of typedef. Here I quote spec:
"Cv-qualified references are ill-formed except when the cv-qualifiers
are introduced through the use of a typedef-name ([dcl.typedef],
[temp.param]) or decltype-specifier ([dcl.type.decltype]),
in which case the cv-qualifiers are ignored."
2021-09-25 qingzhe huang <nickhuan...@hotmail.com>
gcc/cp/
PR c++/101783
* tree.c (cp_build_qualified_type_real):
git gcc-verify still rejects this line with
ERR: missing description of a change: " * tree.c
(cp_build_qualified_type_real):"
You may need to run contrib/gcc-git-customization.sh to get the git
gcc-verify command.
gcc/testsuite/
PR c++/101783
* g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C: New test.
-------------- next part --------------
Please drop this line, it breaks git gcc-verify when I apply the patch
with git am. The patch should start immediately after the ChangeLog
entries.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.c b/gcc/cp/tree.c
index 8840932dba2..d5c8daeb340 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/tree.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/tree.c
@@ -1356,11 +1356,18 @@ cp_build_qualified_type_real (tree type,
/* A reference or method type shall not be cv-qualified.
[dcl.ref], [dcl.fct]. This used to be an error, but as of DR 295
(in CD1) we always ignore extra cv-quals on functions. */
+
+ /* Cv-qualified references are ill-formed except when the cv-qualifiers
In my previous reply I meant please add "[dcl.ref]/1" at the beginning
of this comment.
+ are introduced through the use of a typedef-name ([dcl.typedef],
+ [temp.param]) or decltype-specifier ([dcl.type.decltype]),
+ in which case the cv-qualifiers are ignored.
+ */
if (type_quals & (TYPE_QUAL_CONST | TYPE_QUAL_VOLATILE)
&& (TYPE_REF_P (type)
|| FUNC_OR_METHOD_TYPE_P (type)))
{
- if (TYPE_REF_P (type))
+ if (TYPE_REF_P (type)
+ && (!typedef_variant_p (type) || FUNC_OR_METHOD_TYPE_P (type)))
bad_quals |= type_quals & (TYPE_QUAL_CONST | TYPE_QUAL_VOLATILE);
type_quals &= ~(TYPE_QUAL_CONST | TYPE_QUAL_VOLATILE);
}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..4e0a435dd0b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+template<class T> struct A{
+ typedef T& Type;
+};
+template<class T> void f(const typename A<T>::Type){}
+template <> void f<int>(const typename A<int>::Type){}
2.
In Jonathan's earlier reply he asked how you tested the patch; this
message still doesn't say anything about that.
I communicated with Mr. Jonathan in private email, worrying my naive question
might pollute the public maillist. The following is major part of this
communication and I attached original part in attachment.
How has this patch been tested? Have you bootstrapped the compiler and
run the full testsuite?
Here is how I am doing:
a) build original 10.2.0 from scratch and make check to get both
"testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum"
and "testsuite/g++/g++.sum".
b) apply my patch and build from scratch and make check to get both two files
above.
c) compare two run's *.sum files to see if there is any difference.
(Later I realized there is tool "contrib/compare_tests" is a good help of
doing so.)
3.
What is the legal status of your contributions?
I thought small patch didn't require assignment. However, I just sent email to
ass...@gnu.org to request assignment.
Alternatively, I am not sure if adding this "signoff" tag in submission will
help?
Signed-off-by: qingzhe huang <nickhuan...@hotmail.com>
Thank you again!
On 8/28/21 07:54, nick huang via Gcc-patches wrote:
Reference with cv-qualifiers should be ignored instead of causing an error
because standard accepts cv-qualified references introduced by typedef which
is ignored.
Therefore, the fix prevents GCC from reporting error by not setting variable
"bad_quals" in case the reference is introduced by typedef. Still the
cv-qualifier is silently ignored.
Here I quote spec (https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/dcl.ref#1):
"Cv-qualified references are ill-formed except when the cv-qualifiers
are introduced through the use of a typedef-name ([dcl.typedef],
[temp.param]) or decltype-specifier ([dcl.type.decltype]),
in which case the cv-qualifiers are ignored."
PR c++/101783
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
2021-08-27 qingzhe huang <nickhuan...@hotmail.com>
* tree.c (cp_build_qualified_type_real):
The git commit verifier rejects this commit message with
Checking 1fa0fbcdd15adf936ab4fae584f841beb35da1bb: FAILED ERR: missing
description of a change:
" * tree.c (cp_build_qualified_type_real):"
(your initial patch had a description here, you just need to copy it over)
ERR: PR 101783 in subject but not in changelog:
"c++: Suppress error when cv-qualified reference is introduced by
typedef [PR101783]"
(the PR number needs to have a Tab before it)
In Jonathan's earlier reply he asked how you tested the patch; this
message still doesn't say anything about that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#testing
What is the legal status of your contributions?
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#legal
Existing code tries to handle this with the tf_ignore_bad_quals, but the
unnecessary use of typename gets past the code that tries to set the
flag. But your approach is nice and straightforward, so let's go ahead
with it.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2021-08-27 qingzhe huang <nickhuan...@hotmail.com>
* g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C: New test.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.c b/gcc/cp/tree.c
index 8840932dba2..7aa4318a574 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/tree.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/tree.c
@@ -1356,12 +1356,22 @@ cp_build_qualified_type_real (tree type,
/* A reference or method type shall not be cv-qualified.
[dcl.ref], [dcl.fct]. This used to be an error, but as of DR 295
(in CD1) we always ignore extra cv-quals on functions. */
+
+ /* PR 101783
Let's cite where this comes from in the standard ([dcl.ref]/1), and not
the PR number.
+ Cv-qualified references are ill-formed except when the cv-qualifiers
+ are introduced through the use of a typedef-name ([dcl.typedef],
+ [temp.param]) or decltype-specifier ([dcl.type.decltype]),
+ in which case the cv-qualifiers are ignored.
+ */
if (type_quals & (TYPE_QUAL_CONST | TYPE_QUAL_VOLATILE)
&& (TYPE_REF_P (type)
|| FUNC_OR_METHOD_TYPE_P (type)))
{
- if (TYPE_REF_P (type))
+ // do NOT set bad_quals when non-method reference is introduced by
typedef.
+ if (TYPE_REF_P (type)
+ && (!typedef_variant_p (type) || FUNC_OR_METHOD_TYPE_P (type)))
bad_quals |= type_quals & (TYPE_QUAL_CONST | TYPE_QUAL_VOLATILE);
+ // non-method reference introduced by typedef is also dropped silently
These two // comments seem redundant with the quote from the standard
above, let's drop them.
type_quals &= ~(TYPE_QUAL_CONST | TYPE_QUAL_VOLATILE);
}
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..4e0a435dd0b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+template<class T> struct A{
+ typedef T& Type;
+};
+template<class T> void f(const typename A<T>::Type){}
+template <> void f<int>(const typename A<int>::Type){}
