aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/DeprecatedFunctionalCheck.cpp:48-54 + } else if (const auto *const Call = + Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<CallExpr>("ptr_fun_call")) { + diag(Call->getLocStart(), Message) << "'std::ptr_fun'"; + } else if (const auto *const Call = + Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<CallExpr>("mem_fun_call")) { + diag(Call->getLocStart(), Message) << "'std::mem_fun'"; + } ---------------- alexfh wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > alexfh wrote: > > > alexfh wrote: > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > massberg wrote: > > > > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > > > I think that this code should be generalized (same with the > > > > > > > matchers) so that you match on `hasAnyName()` for the function > > > > > > > calls and use `CallExpr::getCalleeDecl()` to get the declaration. > > > > > > > e.g., > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > if (const auto *Call = Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<CallExpr>("blech")) > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > if (const Decl *Callee = Call->getCalleeDecl()) > > > > > > > diag(Call->getLocStart(), Message) << Calleee; > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > This way you can add more named without having to add extra logic > > > > > > > for the diagnostics. > > > > > > I generalized the code and the matcher. > > > > > > When we use > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > << cast<NamedDecl>(Callee); > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > we get the template arguments in the name , e.g. `ptr_fun<int, > > > > > > int>`, so I chose to use `getQualifiedNameAsString`. > > > > > > If there is there a better way to get the function name without > > > > > > template arguments I appreciate any suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, in that case, your code is correct. However, we generally > > > > > provide the template arguments in diagnostics. I see @alexfh was > > > > > asking for them to be removed as not being useful, but I'm not > > > > > certain I agree with his rationale. Yes, all instances are deprecated > > > > > and thus the template arguments don't discern between good and bad > > > > > cases, but showing the template arguments is also consistent with the > > > > > other diagnostics we emit. For instance, other "deprecated" > > > > > diagnostics also emit the template arguments. I'm not certain we > > > > > should be inconsistent with the way we produce diagnostics, but I'll > > > > > defer to Alex if he still feels strongly about leaving them off here. > > > > Indeed, -Wdeprecated-declarations warnings print template arguments. > > > > Moreover, they seem to be issued only on instantiations, see > > > > https://godbolt.org/g/W563gw. > > > > > > > > But I have a number of concerns with template arguments in the > > > > deprecation warnings: > > > > > > > > 1. The note attached to the warning lies. Consider a warning from the > > > > test above: > > > > ... > > > > <source>:11:1: warning: 'B<int>' is deprecated: bbb > > > > [-Wdeprecated-declarations] > > > > B<int> e; > > > > ^ > > > > <source>:7:10: note: 'B<int>' has been explicitly marked deprecated > > > > here > > > > struct [[deprecated("bbb")]] B {}; > > > > > > > > But `B<int>` hasn't been explicitly marked deprecated, only the > > > > template definition of `B` has been. Template arguments are important > > > > in the case of the explicit template specialization `A<int>` in the > > > > same example, but not in cases where the template definition was marked > > > > deprecated, since template arguments only add noise and no useful > > > > information there. > > > > 2. Warnings can easily become unreadable: https://godbolt.org/g/AFdznH > > > > 3. Certain coding patterns can result in numerous deprecation warnings > > > > differing only in template arguments: https://godbolt.org/g/U2JCbG. > > > > Clang-tidy can deduplicate warnings, if they have identical text and > > > > location, but adding template arguments to the message will prevent > > > > deduplication. I've seen a case where thousands of deprecation warnings > > > > were generated for a single line in a widely used header. > > > > > > > > So yes, I feel strongly about leaving off template arguments in case > > > > the whole template was marked deprecated. I think it would be the right > > > > thing to do for the -Wdeprecated-declarations diagnostic as well. > > > s/leaving off/leaving out/ > > > The note attached to the warning lies. > > > > No it doesn't? The attribute is inherited from the primary template unless > > your explicit specialization *removes* the attribute. > > https://godbolt.org/g/ZuXZds > > > > > Warnings can easily become unreadable > > > > This is true of all template diagnostics and isn't specific to clang-tidy's > > treatment of them. > > > > > I've seen a case where thousands of deprecation warnings were generated > > > for a single line in a widely used header. > > > > This sounds more worrying, but at the same time, your link behaving by > > design and doing what I would want it to do. The presence of the deprecated > > primary template isn't what gets diagnosed, it's the *uses* of the > > deprecated entity. This is called out explicitly in [dcl.attr.deprecated]p4. > > > > > So yes, I feel strongly about leaving off template arguments in case the > > > whole template was marked deprecated. I think it would be the right thing > > > to do for the -Wdeprecated-declarations diagnostic as well. > > > > I would be strongly opposed to that change to -Wdeprecated-declarations. > > > > We may be at an impasse here, but my viewpoint is unchanged -- I think > > removing the template arguments is inconsistent with other diagnostics. > > I'll defer to you on this, but I think it's a mistake and definitely do not > > want to see it used as precedent. > Let's try to look at this from a different angle: are there benefits (apart > from consistency) of including template arguments to deprecation warnings > where the primary template is deprecated rather than a specialization? Could > you provide an example of a case where template arguments are making the > warning easier to understand or to act upon? > > > The presence of the deprecated primary template isn't what gets diagnosed, > > it's the *uses* of the deprecated entity. This is called out explicitly in > > [dcl.attr.deprecated]p4. > Sure, I'm not proposing to change _where_ the warnings are produced, I just > want the warnings to be free of unnecessary information that unnecessarily > makes the warning messages different. In the example I provided > (https://godbolt.org/g/U2JCbG) the program only refers to the deprecated > entity (class Q) once after it's declared (`Q<T>` in `class S : Q<T> {};`). > IMO knowing the specific value of `T` doesn't give the user any useful > information in this case. This only makes the message less readable and gets > in the way of any efforts to deduplicate the warnings. Am I missing something? > Let's try to look at this from a different angle: are there benefits (apart > from consistency) of including template arguments to deprecation warnings > where the primary template is deprecated rather than a specialization? Could > you provide an example of a case where template arguments are making the > warning easier to understand or to act upon? My concern is that we elide the template args in *all* cases, not just primary vs specialization. Knowing the template args is quite important in these cases: ``` // Primary template isn't deprecated. template<typename T> struct A {}; // Specialization is deprecated. template<> struct [[deprecated("aaa")]] A<int> {}; // Primary template is deprecated. template<typename T> struct [[deprecated("bbb")]] B {}; // Specialization is not deprecated. template<> struct B<int> {}; ``` However, I agree that in the case where the primary template is deprecated and no specializations differ, the template args don't help all that much. Also, I don't think we should be so quick to write off consistency. I've seen projects parse compiler output before; consistency turns out to be important in weird ways. ;-) > Am I missing something? I think our definition of "unnecessary" is what differs. I consider the template arguments of an instantiation to be necessary as they are part of the type definition. Some types in a template set may be deprecated while others may not be -- losing the template arguments in *all* cases means important information is not conveyed to the user. If we decide we want to change the way we output template diagnostics in the presence of *no* specializations, that's a different discussion. However, the code (as it is) is stripping the template arguments in all cases. https://reviews.llvm.org/D42730 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits