>>You may need to run contrib/gcc-git-customization.sh to get the git
>>gcc-verify command.
I re-setup and can use git gcc-verify. Now I can see it rejects because I
forgot to add a
description of modified file. Now that it passes gcc-verify and I attach the
changelog
as attachment.
Thank you again for your patient explanation and help!
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){}
>>>
>>>
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
[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."
2021-09-30 qingzhe huang <nickhuan...@hotmail.com>
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/101783
* tree.c (cp_build_qualified_type_real): Excluding typedef from error
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR c++/101783
* g++.dg/parse/pr101783.C: New test.
diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.c b/gcc/cp/tree.c
index 8840932dba2..cdc27facf02 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. */
+
+ /* [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.
+ */
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){}
