[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1434,10 +1446,13 @@ namespace { QualType ArgType; }; -unsigned NumPlacementArgs : 31; -LLVM_PREFERRED_TYPE(bool) +unsigned NumPlacementArgs : 30; +LLVM_PREFERRED_TYPE(AlignedAllocationMode) unsigned PassAlignmentToPlacementDelete : 1; +LL

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1434,10 +1446,13 @@ namespace { QualType ArgType; }; -unsigned NumPlacementArgs : 31; -LLVM_PREFERRED_TYPE(bool) +unsigned NumPlacementArgs : 30; +LLVM_PREFERRED_TYPE(AlignedAllocationMode) unsigned PassAlignmentToPlacementDelete : 1; +LL

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

ojhunt wrote: @alexfh yeah I think I found the issue, would you mind trying https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137102 ? (need to work on tests but wanted you to be able to test quickly - I'm currently waiting on a fresh build alas so the PR is currently done blind) https://github.com/l

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

alexfh wrote: There are two issues: 1. an assertion failure in Clang: `assertion failed at clang/lib/CodeGen/CGExprCXX.cpp:1428 in UsualDeleteParams getUsualDeleteParams(const FunctionDecl *): AI == AE && "unexpected usual deallocation function parameter"` 2. `no suitable member 'operator dele

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

ojhunt wrote: > We have tracked two more issues to this commit. Both only manifest when using > Clang header modules, which likely means that AST serialization is somehow > incorrect after this patch. I'm reducing one of the test cases now, but it's > taking a lot of time. In the meantime, ple

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

ojhunt wrote: > We have tracked two more issues to this commit. Both only manifest when using > Clang header modules, which likely means that AST serialization is somehow > incorrect after this patch. I'm reducing one of the test cases now, but it's > taking a lot of time. In the meantime, ple

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

ojhunt wrote: It's even more dumb, but I have this fixed and am writing tests https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

ojhunt wrote: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135686 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

Sterling-Augustine wrote: That would be very helpful. Thank you. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

ojhunt wrote: I have a very immediate fix, but I'd rather a slightly nicer one - at some point refactoring exposed a problem in access control diagnostics, in a way that is very very weird and implies something else broken in the existing tree as well. If I can't work out the correct systemic

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

cor3ntin wrote: @Sterling-Augustine Oliver is looking into it. Given it's a relatively large patch, I'd rather wait a day until reverting to avoid churn. Will that work for you? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510 ___ cfe-commits mailing

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

Sterling-Augustine wrote: What is the time frame for a fix? Should we revert this change and until then? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/lis

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

ojhunt wrote: @Sterling-Augustine thank you! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

Sterling-Augustine wrote: Yes it does. Here is a reduced repro: ``` augustine:~/crdc $ cat repro.ii extern void* GetMem(); class MyFileMod { public: MyFileMod(int x, int y) {} void SetNext() {} friend class Foo; private: static void * operator new(unsigned long size) { return GetMem()

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

ojhunt wrote: > We have tracked down a new and spurious "This variable is used uninitialized" > to this PR. I'm working on a reduced test case now. It looks like this: > > ``` > .cpp:XXX+2:13: error: variable 'new_section' is uninitialized when > used here [-Werror,-Wuninitialized] > 572 |

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

ojhunt wrote: > We have tracked down a new and spurious "This variable is used uninitialized" > to this PR. I'm working on a reduced test case now. It looks like this: > > ``` > .cpp:XXX+2:13: error: variable 'new_section' is uninitialized when > used here [-Werror,-Wuninitialized] > 572 |

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

https://github.com/ojhunt closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

https://github.com/erichkeane commented: Just 1 suggestion, otherwise nothing the othres didnt come up with. I'm happy when everyone else is. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org htt

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -81,6 +81,8 @@ C++2c Feature Support - Implemented `P0963R3 Structured binding declaration as a condition `_. +- Implemented `P2719Rx Type-aware allocation and deallocation functions `_. erichkeane wrot

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16421,33 +16715,70 @@ CheckOperatorDeleteDeclaration(Sema &SemaRef, FunctionDecl *FnDecl) { return true; auto *MD = dyn_cast(FnDecl); + auto ConstructDestroyingDeleteAddressType = [&]() { +assert(MD); +return SemaRef.Context.getCanonicalType(SemaRef.Context

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

https://github.com/cor3ntin approved this pull request. I think the PR is in pretty good shape and it's becoming counter productive to nitpick this giant piece of work. Thanks a lot for sticking with it. Hopefully the GitHub workflow can be less surprising in the future. Looks Good To Me. S

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -9753,27 +9753,46 @@ def err_operator_new_delete_invalid_result_type : Error< def err_operator_new_delete_dependent_result_type : Error< "%0 cannot have a dependent return type; use %1 instead">; def err_operator_new_delete_too_few_parameters : Error< - "%0 must have at l

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1098,12 +1098,39 @@ static TypeSourceInfo *getTypeSourceInfoForStdAlignValT(Sema &S, return S.Context.getTrivialTypeSourceInfo(StdAlignValDecl); } +// When searching for custom allocators on the PromiseType we want to +// warn that we will ignore type aware allocators.

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -7353,6 +7354,69 @@ void Sema::CheckCompletedCXXClass(Scope *S, CXXRecordDecl *Record) { else if (Record->hasAttr()) checkCUDADeviceBuiltinTextureClassTemplate(*this, Record); } + + llvm::SmallVector TypeAwareNewDecls; + llvm::SmallVector TypeAwareDeleteDecls;

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16327,79 +16531,181 @@ static CanQualType RemoveAddressSpaceFromPtr(Sema &SemaRef, PtrTy->getPointeeType().getUnqualifiedType(), PtrQuals))); } -static inline bool -CheckOperatorNewDeleteTypes(Sema &SemaRef, const FunctionDecl *FnDecl, -C

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -2709,14 +2831,63 @@ static bool resolveAllocationOverload( llvm_unreachable("Unreachable, bad result from BestViableFunction"); } -bool Sema::FindAllocationFunctions(SourceLocation StartLoc, SourceRange Range, - AllocationFunctionScope N

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -9753,27 +9753,46 @@ def err_operator_new_delete_invalid_result_type : Error< def err_operator_new_delete_dependent_result_type : Error< "%0 cannot have a dependent return type; use %1 instead">; def err_operator_new_delete_too_few_parameters : Error< - "%0 must have at l

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -9753,27 +9753,46 @@ def err_operator_new_delete_invalid_result_type : Error< def err_operator_new_delete_dependent_result_type : Error< "%0 cannot have a dependent return type; use %1 instead">; def err_operator_new_delete_too_few_parameters : Error< - "%0 must have at l

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16335,22 +16550,27 @@ CheckOperatorNewDeclaration(Sema &SemaRef, const FunctionDecl *FnDecl) { CanQualType SizeTy = SemaRef.Context.getCanonicalType(SemaRef.Context.getSizeType()); + unsigned MinimumNonDefaultArgs = 0; // C++ [basic.stc.dynamic.allocation]p1:

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1866,13 +1959,13 @@ static UsualDeallocFnInfo resolveDeallocationOverload( BestFns->push_back(Info); continue; } - -if (Best.isBetterThan(Info, WantSize, WantAlign)) +int ComparisonResult = Best.Compare(S, Info, IDP); +if (ComparisonResult > 0)

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16327,79 +16531,181 @@ static CanQualType RemoveAddressSpaceFromPtr(Sema &SemaRef, PtrTy->getPointeeType().getUnqualifiedType(), PtrQuals))); } -static inline bool -CheckOperatorNewDeleteTypes(Sema &SemaRef, const FunctionDecl *FnDecl, -C

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -2627,16 +2731,21 @@ static bool resolveAllocationOverload( // FIXME: Find out how this interacts with the std::align_val_t fallback // once MSVC implements it. if (R.getLookupName().getCXXOverloadedOperator() == OO_Array_New && -S.Context.getLangOpts().M

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -477,6 +477,34 @@ class DeclarationName { return OO_None; } + bool isAnyOperatorNew() const { +if (getNameKind() != DeclarationName::CXXOperatorName) + return false; +switch (getCXXOverloadedOperator()) { +case OO_New: +case OO_Array_New: +

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16421,33 +16715,70 @@ CheckOperatorDeleteDeclaration(Sema &SemaRef, FunctionDecl *FnDecl) { return true; auto *MD = dyn_cast(FnDecl); + auto ConstructDestroyingDeleteAddressType = [&]() { +assert(MD); +return SemaRef.Context.getCanonicalType(SemaRef.Context

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

https://github.com/ojhunt edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

https://github.com/erichkeane edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -9753,27 +9753,46 @@ def err_operator_new_delete_invalid_result_type : Error< def err_operator_new_delete_dependent_result_type : Error< "%0 cannot have a dependent return type; use %1 instead">; def err_operator_new_delete_too_few_parameters : Error< - "%0 must have at l

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

https://github.com/cor3ntin edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16421,33 +16715,70 @@ CheckOperatorDeleteDeclaration(Sema &SemaRef, FunctionDecl *FnDecl) { return true; auto *MD = dyn_cast(FnDecl); + auto ConstructDestroyingDeleteAddressType = [&]() { +assert(MD); +return SemaRef.Context.getCanonicalType(SemaRef.Context

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -9753,27 +9753,46 @@ def err_operator_new_delete_invalid_result_type : Error< def err_operator_new_delete_dependent_result_type : Error< "%0 cannot have a dependent return type; use %1 instead">; def err_operator_new_delete_too_few_parameters : Error< - "%0 must have at l

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -9753,27 +9753,46 @@ def err_operator_new_delete_invalid_result_type : Error< def err_operator_new_delete_dependent_result_type : Error< "%0 cannot have a dependent return type; use %1 instead">; def err_operator_new_delete_too_few_parameters : Error< - "%0 must have at l

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

https://github.com/cor3ntin commented: A few nits. My intent is to approve the pr once they are addressed @AaronBallman @erichkeane https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16223,6 +16324,70 @@ bool Sema::CompleteConstructorCall(CXXConstructorDecl *Constructor, return Invalid; } +bool Sema::isTypeAwareOperatorNewOrDelete(const NamedDecl *ND) const { + const FunctionDecl *FnDecl = nullptr; ojhunt wrote: Removed and replac

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -2234,6 +2234,101 @@ enum class CXXNewInitializationStyle { Braces }; +enum class TypeAwareAllocationMode : unsigned { No, Yes }; +inline bool isTypeAwareAllocation(TypeAwareAllocationMode Mode) { + return Mode == TypeAwareAllocationMode::Yes; +} +inline TypeAwareAllocat

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -312,6 +312,7 @@ LANGOPT(OpenACC , 1, 0, "OpenACC Enabled") LANGOPT(MSVCEnableStdcMacro , 1, 0, "Define __STDC__ with '-fms-compatibility'") LANGOPT(SizedDeallocation , 1, 0, "sized deallocation") +LANGOPT(TypeAwareAllocators , 1, 1, "type aware C++ allocation op

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -7353,6 +7354,69 @@ void Sema::CheckCompletedCXXClass(Scope *S, CXXRecordDecl *Record) { else if (Record->hasAttr()) checkCUDADeviceBuiltinTextureClassTemplate(*this, Record); } + + llvm::SmallVector TypeAwareNewDecls; + llvm::SmallVector TypeAwareDeleteDecls;

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -7353,6 +7354,69 @@ void Sema::CheckCompletedCXXClass(Scope *S, CXXRecordDecl *Record) { else if (Record->hasAttr()) checkCUDADeviceBuiltinTextureClassTemplate(*this, Record); } + + llvm::SmallVector TypeAwareNewDecls; + llvm::SmallVector TypeAwareDeleteDecls;

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -2527,6 +2527,32 @@ class FunctionDecl : public DeclaratorDecl, /// If this function is an allocation/deallocation function that takes /// the `std::nothrow_t` tag, return true through IsNothrow, bool isReplaceableGlobalAllocationFunction( + std::optional *Alignme

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1098,12 +1098,39 @@ static TypeSourceInfo *getTypeSourceInfoForStdAlignValT(Sema &S, return S.Context.getTrivialTypeSourceInfo(StdAlignValDecl); } +// When searching for custom allocators on the PromiseType we want to +// warn that we will ignore type aware allocators.

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16439,33 +16735,70 @@ CheckOperatorDeleteDeclaration(Sema &SemaRef, FunctionDecl *FnDecl) { return true; auto *MD = dyn_cast(FnDecl); + auto ConstructDestroyingDeleteAddressType = [&]() { +assert(MD); +return SemaRef.Context.getCanonicalType(SemaRef.Context

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -2474,19 +2474,46 @@ bool CXXMethodDecl::isUsualDeallocationFunction( getOverloadedOperator() != OO_Array_Delete) return false; + auto NumParams = getNumParams(); + bool IsTypeAware = IsTypeAwareOperatorNewOrDelete(); + // C++ [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation]

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

https://github.com/ojhunt edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1098,12 +1098,39 @@ static TypeSourceInfo *getTypeSourceInfoForStdAlignValT(Sema &S, return S.Context.getTrivialTypeSourceInfo(StdAlignValDecl); } +// When searching for custom allocators on the PromiseType we want to +// warn that we will ignore type aware allocators.

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -17389,6 +17389,19 @@ Sema::ActOnTag(Scope *S, unsigned TagSpec, TagUseKind TUK, SourceLocation KWLoc, Previous.clear(); } + // I think DC check should be DC->isStdNamespace()? ojhunt wrote: @erichkeane so I think this was a case where the test can

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16147,6 +16169,108 @@ bool Sema::CompleteConstructorCall(CXXConstructorDecl *Constructor, return Invalid; } +bool Sema::isTypeAwareOperatorNewOrDelete(const NamedDecl *ND) const { + const FunctionDecl *FnDecl = nullptr; + if (auto *FTD = dyn_cast(ND)) +FnDecl = FT

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1095,12 +1095,40 @@ static TypeSourceInfo *getTypeSourceInfoForStdAlignValT(Sema &S, return S.Context.getTrivialTypeSourceInfo(StdAlignValDecl); } +// When searching for custom allocators on the PromiseType we want to +// warn that we will ignore type aware allocators.

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -3096,6 +3096,29 @@ bool Type::isStdByteType() const { return false; } +TemplateDecl *Type::getSpecializedTemplateDecl() const { + const auto *DesugaredType = getUnqualifiedDesugaredType(); + if (auto *Specialization = DesugaredType->getAs()) +return Specialization

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1586,8 +1597,22 @@ bool CoroutineStmtBuilder::makeNewAndDeleteExpr() { if (NewRef.isInvalid()) return false; - SmallVector NewArgs(1, FrameSize); - if (S.getLangOpts().CoroAlignedAllocation && PassAlignment) + SmallVector NewArgs; + if (IAP.PassTypeIdentity) { +

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -9688,6 +9688,18 @@ def err_operator_delete_param_type : Error< def err_destroying_operator_delete_not_usual : Error< "destroying operator delete can have only an optional size and optional " "alignment parameter">; +def err_type_aware_destroying_operator_delete : Error<

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -2474,19 +2474,46 @@ bool CXXMethodDecl::isUsualDeallocationFunction( getOverloadedOperator() != OO_Array_Delete) return false; + auto NumParams = getNumParams(); ojhunt wrote: Done. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113510 _

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -3482,15 +3486,40 @@ bool FunctionDecl::isDestroyingOperatorDelete() const { // Within a class C, a single object deallocation function with signature // (T, std::destroying_delete_t, ) // is a destroying operator delete. - if (!isa(this) || getOverloadedOpera

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1392,7 +1393,13 @@ static UsualDeleteParams getUsualDeleteParams(const FunctionDecl *FD) { const FunctionProtoType *FPT = FD->getType()->castAs(); auto AI = FPT->param_type_begin(), AE = FPT->param_type_end(); - // The first argument is always a void*. + if (FD->isT

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -3096,6 +3096,29 @@ bool Type::isStdByteType() const { return false; } +TemplateDecl *Type::getSpecializedTemplateDecl() const { + const auto *DesugaredType = getUnqualifiedDesugaredType(); + if (auto *Specialization = DesugaredType->getAs()) +return Specialization

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16147,6 +16169,108 @@ bool Sema::CompleteConstructorCall(CXXConstructorDecl *Constructor, return Invalid; } +bool Sema::isTypeAwareOperatorNewOrDelete(const NamedDecl *ND) const { + const FunctionDecl *FnDecl = nullptr; + if (auto *FTD = dyn_cast(ND)) +FnDecl = FT

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1435,6 +1444,8 @@ namespace { unsigned NumPlacementArgs : 31; LLVM_PREFERRED_TYPE(bool) unsigned PassAlignmentToPlacementDelete : 1; +LLVM_PREFERRED_TYPE(bool) +unsigned PassTypeToPlacementDelete : 1; ojhunt wrote: Should we add a stati

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -9817,27 +9817,54 @@ def err_operator_new_delete_invalid_result_type : Error< def err_operator_new_delete_dependent_result_type : Error< "%0 cannot have a dependent return type; use %1 instead">; def err_operator_new_delete_too_few_parameters : Error< - "%0 must have at l

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1586,8 +1597,22 @@ bool CoroutineStmtBuilder::makeNewAndDeleteExpr() { if (NewRef.isInvalid()) return false; - SmallVector NewArgs(1, FrameSize); - if (S.getLangOpts().CoroAlignedAllocation && PassAlignment) + SmallVector NewArgs; + if (IAP.PassTypeIdentity) { +

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -2474,19 +2474,46 @@ bool CXXMethodDecl::isUsualDeallocationFunction( getOverloadedOperator() != OO_Array_Delete) return false; + auto NumParams = getNumParams(); + bool IsTypeAware = IsTypeAwareOperatorNewOrDelete(); + // C++ [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation]

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16110,6 +16128,127 @@ bool Sema::CompleteConstructorCall(CXXConstructorDecl *Constructor, return Invalid; } +bool Sema::IsTypeIdentitySpecialization(QualType Type) const { + auto *TypeIdentity = getStdTypeIdentity(); + if (!TypeIdentity) +return false; + auto *Sp

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

https://github.com/ojhunt commented: > *[Reviewable](https://reviewable.io/reviews/llvm/llvm-project/113510)* > status: 0 of 62 files reviewed, 127 unresolved discussions (waiting on > @AaronBallman, @Bigcheese, @ChuanqiXu9, @cor3ntin, @efriedma-quic, > @erichkeane, @mizvekov, @ogiroux, @Sir

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1466,17 +1477,30 @@ namespace { void Emit(CodeGenFunction &CGF, Flags flags) override { const auto *FPT = OperatorDelete->getType()->castAs(); CallArgList DeleteArgs; - - // The first argument is always a void* (or C* for a destroying operator - //

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -2527,6 +2527,32 @@ class FunctionDecl : public DeclaratorDecl, /// If this function is an allocation/deallocation function that takes /// the `std::nothrow_t` tag, return true through IsNothrow, bool isReplaceableGlobalAllocationFunction( + std::optional *Alignme

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1098,12 +1098,39 @@ static TypeSourceInfo *getTypeSourceInfoForStdAlignValT(Sema &S, return S.Context.getTrivialTypeSourceInfo(StdAlignValDecl); } +// When searching for custom allocators on the PromiseType we want to +// warn that we will ignore type aware allocators.

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1098,12 +1098,39 @@ static TypeSourceInfo *getTypeSourceInfoForStdAlignValT(Sema &S, return S.Context.getTrivialTypeSourceInfo(StdAlignValDecl); } +// When searching for custom allocators on the PromiseType we want to +// warn that we will ignore type aware allocators.

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16327,79 +16531,181 @@ static CanQualType RemoveAddressSpaceFromPtr(Sema &SemaRef, PtrTy->getPointeeType().getUnqualifiedType(), PtrQuals))); } -static inline bool -CheckOperatorNewDeleteTypes(Sema &SemaRef, const FunctionDecl *FnDecl, -C

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1098,12 +1098,39 @@ static TypeSourceInfo *getTypeSourceInfoForStdAlignValT(Sema &S, return S.Context.getTrivialTypeSourceInfo(StdAlignValDecl); } +// When searching for custom allocators on the PromiseType we want to +// warn that we will ignore type aware allocators.

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -7353,6 +7354,69 @@ void Sema::CheckCompletedCXXClass(Scope *S, CXXRecordDecl *Record) { else if (Record->hasAttr()) checkCUDADeviceBuiltinTextureClassTemplate(*this, Record); } + + llvm::SmallVector TypeAwareNewDecls; + llvm::SmallVector TypeAwareDeleteDecls;

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16327,79 +16531,181 @@ static CanQualType RemoveAddressSpaceFromPtr(Sema &SemaRef, PtrTy->getPointeeType().getUnqualifiedType(), PtrQuals))); } -static inline bool -CheckOperatorNewDeleteTypes(Sema &SemaRef, const FunctionDecl *FnDecl, -C

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -7353,6 +7354,69 @@ void Sema::CheckCompletedCXXClass(Scope *S, CXXRecordDecl *Record) { else if (Record->hasAttr()) checkCUDADeviceBuiltinTextureClassTemplate(*this, Record); } + + llvm::SmallVector TypeAwareNewDecls; + llvm::SmallVector TypeAwareDeleteDecls;

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -7353,6 +7354,69 @@ void Sema::CheckCompletedCXXClass(Scope *S, CXXRecordDecl *Record) { else if (Record->hasAttr()) checkCUDADeviceBuiltinTextureClassTemplate(*this, Record); } + + llvm::SmallVector TypeAwareNewDecls; + llvm::SmallVector TypeAwareDeleteDecls;

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16439,33 +16735,70 @@ CheckOperatorDeleteDeclaration(Sema &SemaRef, FunctionDecl *FnDecl) { return true; auto *MD = dyn_cast(FnDecl); + auto ConstructDestroyingDeleteAddressType = [&]() { +assert(MD); +return SemaRef.Context.getCanonicalType(SemaRef.Context

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16327,79 +16531,181 @@ static CanQualType RemoveAddressSpaceFromPtr(Sema &SemaRef, PtrTy->getPointeeType().getUnqualifiedType(), PtrQuals))); } -static inline bool -CheckOperatorNewDeleteTypes(Sema &SemaRef, const FunctionDecl *FnDecl, -C

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -7353,6 +7354,69 @@ void Sema::CheckCompletedCXXClass(Scope *S, CXXRecordDecl *Record) { else if (Record->hasAttr()) checkCUDADeviceBuiltinTextureClassTemplate(*this, Record); } + + llvm::SmallVector TypeAwareNewDecls; + llvm::SmallVector TypeAwareDeleteDecls;

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -9817,27 +9817,54 @@ def err_operator_new_delete_invalid_result_type : Error< def err_operator_new_delete_dependent_result_type : Error< "%0 cannot have a dependent return type; use %1 instead">; def err_operator_new_delete_too_few_parameters : Error< - "%0 must have at l

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16327,79 +16531,181 @@ static CanQualType RemoveAddressSpaceFromPtr(Sema &SemaRef, PtrTy->getPointeeType().getUnqualifiedType(), PtrQuals))); } -static inline bool -CheckOperatorNewDeleteTypes(Sema &SemaRef, const FunctionDecl *FnDecl, -C

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16327,79 +16531,181 @@ static CanQualType RemoveAddressSpaceFromPtr(Sema &SemaRef, PtrTy->getPointeeType().getUnqualifiedType(), PtrQuals))); } -static inline bool -CheckOperatorNewDeleteTypes(Sema &SemaRef, const FunctionDecl *FnDecl, -C

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1466,17 +1477,30 @@ namespace { void Emit(CodeGenFunction &CGF, Flags flags) override { const auto *FPT = OperatorDelete->getType()->castAs(); CallArgList DeleteArgs; - - // The first argument is always a void* (or C* for a destroying operator - //

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@ +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple arm64-apple-macosx -fsyntax-only -verify %s -std=c++26 -fcoroutines -fexceptions -Wall -Wpedantic + + +#include "Inputs/std-coroutine.h" + +namespace std { + template struct type_identity { + typedef T type; + }; + typedef __

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -3128,6 +3128,26 @@ bool Type::isStdByteType() const { return false; } +static const TemplateDecl *getSpecializedTemplateType(const Type *T) { + const Type *DesugaredType = T->getUnqualifiedDesugaredType(); + if (const auto *Specialization = + DesugaredType->ge

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -477,6 +477,44 @@ class DeclarationName { return OO_None; } + bool isOperatorNew() const { +if (getNameKind() != DeclarationName::CXXOperatorName) + return false; +switch (getCXXOverloadedOperator()) { +case OO_New: +case OO_Array_New: + ret

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -307,6 +307,10 @@ EXTENSION(datasizeof, LangOpts.CPlusPlus) FEATURE(cxx_abi_relative_vtable, LangOpts.CPlusPlus && LangOpts.RelativeCXXABIVTables) +// Type aware allocators +FEATURE(cxx_type_aware_allocators, LangOpts.TypeAwareAllocators) ojhunt wrote: R

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1110,9 +1138,10 @@ static bool findDeleteForPromise(Sema &S, SourceLocation Loc, QualType PromiseTy // The deallocation function's name is looked up by searching for it in the // scope of the promise type. If nothing is found, a search is performed in // the global s

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -9784,10 +9850,16 @@ bool Sema::ShouldDeleteSpecialMember(CXXMethodDecl *MD, //results in an ambiguity or in a function that is deleted or inaccessible if (CSM == CXXSpecialMemberKind::Destructor && MD->isVirtual()) { FunctionDecl *OperatorDelete = nullptr; +

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16147,6 +16169,108 @@ bool Sema::CompleteConstructorCall(CXXConstructorDecl *Constructor, return Invalid; } +bool Sema::isTypeAwareOperatorNewOrDelete(const NamedDecl *ND) const { + const FunctionDecl *FnDecl = nullptr; + if (auto *FTD = dyn_cast(ND)) +FnDecl = FT

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -3134,6 +3134,31 @@ bool Type::isStdByteType() const { return false; } +bool Type::isDestroyingDeleteT() const { + auto *RD = getAsCXXRecordDecl(); + return RD && RD->isInStdNamespace() && RD->getIdentifier() && + RD->getIdentifier()->isStr("destroying_delete_t"

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -2533,9 +2533,43 @@ bool CXXMethodDecl::isUsualDeallocationFunction( getOverloadedOperator() != OO_Array_Delete) ojhunt wrote: I've adopted them in a few places, and I'm renaming them to isAnyOperatorNew, isAnyOperatorDelete so it's less confusable wit

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -16298,6 +16396,70 @@ bool Sema::CompleteConstructorCall(CXXConstructorDecl *Constructor, return Invalid; } +bool Sema::isTypeAwareOperatorNewOrDelete(const NamedDecl *ND) const { + const FunctionDecl *FnDecl = nullptr; + if (auto *FTD = dyn_cast(ND)) +FnDecl = FTD

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1829,10 +1829,18 @@ class DeclContext { // refers to an enclosing template for hte purposes of [temp.friend]p9. LLVM_PREFERRED_TYPE(bool) uint64_t FriendConstraintRefersToEnclosingTemplate : 1; + +// Indicates this function is type aware operator new or dele

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1829,10 +1829,18 @@ class DeclContext { // refers to an enclosing template for hte purposes of [temp.friend]p9. LLVM_PREFERRED_TYPE(bool) uint64_t FriendConstraintRefersToEnclosingTemplate : 1; + +// Indicates this function is type aware operator new or dele

[clang] [RFC] Initial implementation of P2719 (PR #113510)

@@ -1866,13 +1959,13 @@ static UsualDeallocFnInfo resolveDeallocationOverload( BestFns->push_back(Info); continue; } - -if (Best.isBetterThan(Info, WantSize, WantAlign)) +int ComparisonResult = Best.Compare(S, Info, IDP); +if (ComparisonResult > 0)

  1   2   3   >