On 2/28/20 12:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/28/20 9:58 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/24/20 6:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
-Wredundant-tags doesn't consider type declarations that are also
the first uses of the type, such as in 'void f (struct S);' and
issues false positives for those. According to the reported that's
making it harder to use the warning to clean up LibreOffice.
The attached patch extends -Wredundant-tags to avoid these false
positives by relying on the same class_decl_loc_t::class2loc mapping
as -Wmismatched-tags. The patch also somewhat improves the detection
of both issues in template declarations (though more work is still
needed there).
+ a new entry for it and return unless it's a declaration
+ involving a template that may need to be diagnosed by
+ -Wredundant-tags. */
*rdl = class_decl_loc_t (class_key, false, def_p);
- return;
+ if (TREE_CODE (decl) != TEMPLATE_DECL)
+ return;
How can the first appearance of a class template be redundant?
I'm not sure I correctly understand the question. The comment says
"involving a template" (i.e., not one of the first declaration of
a template). The test case that corresponds to this test is:
template <class> struct S7 { };
struct S7<void> s7v; // { dg-warning "\\\[-Wredundant-tags" }
where DECL is the TEPLATE_DECL of S7<void>.
As I mentioned, more work is still needed to handle templates right
because some redundant tags are still not diagnosed. For example:
template <class> struct S7 { };
template <class T>
using U = struct S7<T>; // missing warning
When we get here for an instance of a template, it doesn't make sense to
treat it as a new type.
If decl is a template and type_decl is an instance of that template, do
we want to (before the lookup) change type_decl to the template or the
corresponding generic TYPE_DECL, which should already be in the table?
Jason
