dwblaikie wrote:
> It looks like the presence of `static` on template variable specializations
> makes difference in the namespace context: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/WGsreqbz8
>
> Specifically, the specializations not marked `static` result in an exported
> variable. Thus, we have seemingly va
sdkrystian wrote:
> I've been hinted though that Clang may be incorrect in accepting explicit
> specializations of a templated static class data member in the class scope.
> It looks like with all the restrictions in the standard it may only be
> allowed to place explicit specializations of a
alexfh wrote:
Thanks for proposing a fix! I've been hinted though that Clang may be incorrect
in accepting explicit specializations of a templated static class data member
in the class scope. It looks like with all the restrictions in the standard it
may only be allowed to place explicit speci
sdkrystian wrote:
> non-static class member
@alexfh Missed this one :) Opened a PR to fix this
[here](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97425).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93873
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llv
alexfh wrote:
There's more (https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/YKKah8M1n):
```
class D {
template
static constexpr int kMaxUnsignedInt = 2 * kMaxUnsignedInt + 1;
template <>
constexpr auto kMaxUnsignedInt<1> = 1;
};
```
fails to compile with
```
:14:11: error: 'auto' not allowed in non-static class mem
alexfh wrote:
It looks like the presence of `static` on template variable specializations
makes difference in the namespace context: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/b5ns1zhx6
Specifically, the specializations not marked `static` result in an exported
variable. Thus, we have seemingly valid code that
dwblaikie wrote:
Sent a patch to add a warning flag for the warning this patch uses:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96699
With that, we could disable the warning during the compiler migration,
decoupling compiler migration from code cleanup.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pul
alexfh wrote:
Specifically, the problem is that we can't fix code that corresponds to case #
1 from the description, since it produces code corresponding to pattern # 2,
which can't compile with current clang. Shipping fixes together with the
compiler is not an option for us (and probably for
bgra8 wrote:
@sdkrystian we need a way to disable the new check so we can do the code fixes
for our large codebase while still using the old compiler.
As the patch description suggests the correct code is rejected by the current
`clang` so we have no path forward here. Can you please add a fl
https://github.com/sdkrystian closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93873
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/sdkrystian updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93873
>From 40b69a190a1af610d946108394a38e3ac93dbd71 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Krystian Stasiowski
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 07:42:06 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [Clang][Sema] Diagnose variable template explicit
s
https://github.com/sdkrystian updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93873
>From 40b69a190a1af610d946108394a38e3ac93dbd71 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Krystian Stasiowski
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 07:42:06 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [Clang][Sema] Diagnose variable template explicit
s
https://github.com/sdkrystian updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93873
>From e638448bce1dd529acbf81592f324bdc1ecb3e19 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Krystian Stasiowski
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 07:42:06 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [Clang][Sema] Diagnose variable template explicit
s
sdkrystian wrote:
@mizvekov GCC seems to be right; [[decl.meaning.general]
p3.3](eel.is/c++draft/dcl.meaning.general#3.3) requires that the specialized
declaration be nominable (per [[basic.scope.scope]
p7](eel.is/c++draft/basic.scope.scope#7)) in `S` (which in this case is the
global namespa
https://github.com/Endilll commented:
DR test changes look good.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93873
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/mizvekov commented:
Interestingly, only GCC errors on a case like this:
```
namespace {
template int A = 0;
}
template<> int A = 0;
```
https://godbolt.org/z/TTjssKxz5
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93873
___
cfe-commi
https://github.com/sdkrystian updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93873
>From e638448bce1dd529acbf81592f324bdc1ecb3e19 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Krystian Stasiowski
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 07:42:06 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [Clang][Sema] Diagnose variable template explicit
s
@@ -3561,6 +3562,7 @@ Sema::ActOnCXXMemberDeclarator(Scope *S, AccessSpecifier
AS, Declarator &D,
}
return nullptr;
}
+#endif
mizvekov wrote:
Leftover
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93873
___
@@ -3541,6 +3541,7 @@ Sema::ActOnCXXMemberDeclarator(Scope *S, AccessSpecifier
AS, Declarator &D,
IdentifierInfo *II = Name.getAsIdentifierInfo();
+#if 0
mizvekov wrote:
Leftover
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93873
_
https://github.com/erichkeane approved this pull request.
Sensible to me! Definitely needs a release note. Perhaps an alert on
discourse about 'potentially breaking' changes.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93873
___
cfe-commits mailing li
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-modules
Author: Krystian Stasiowski (sdkrystian)
Changes
According to [[temp.expl.spec] p2](http://eel.is/c++draft/temp.expl.spec#2):
> The declaration in an _explicit-specialization_ shall not be an
_export-declaration_. An explicit specializatio
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Krystian Stasiowski (sdkrystian)
Changes
According to [[temp.expl.spec] p2](http://eel.is/c++draft/temp.expl.spec#2):
> The declaration in an _explicit-specialization_ shall not be an
_export-declaration_. An explicit specialization shall
https://github.com/sdkrystian created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93873
According to [[temp.expl.spec] p2](http://eel.is/c++draft/temp.expl.spec#2):
> The declaration in an _explicit-specialization_ shall not be an
> _export-declaration_. An explicit specialization shall not use a
23 matches
Mail list logo
