From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 1401D3858018; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 01:24:00 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1401D3858018
From: "barry.revzin at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/101006] New: Request diagnostic for likely concept syntax
 errors
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 01:23:59 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: barry.revzin at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status
 bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter target_milestone
Message-ID: <bug-101006-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 01:24:00 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101006

            Bug ID: 101006
           Summary: Request diagnostic for likely concept syntax errors
           Product: gcc
           Version: 10.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: barry.revzin at gmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

Consider the following:

template <typename T>
concept Thing =3D true;

template <typename T>
concept MemberThing =3D requires (T t) {
    t.member() -> Thing;        // #1
    !requires { t.member(); };  // #2
};

These are likely intended to be (obviously not at the same time, this is ju=
st
an example):

template <typename T>
concept MemberThing =3D requires (T t) {
    { t.member() } -> Thing;

    requires !requires { t.member(); };
};

But #1 is very likely to be a bug, and #2 is completely pointless as a
requirement since it's tautologically true. It would be nice if gcc could
produce warnings in such cases.

#2 is a similar case to the P2092 fixup of:

template <typename T>
concept MemberThing =3D requires (T t) {
    requires { t.member(); };
};

which is now ill-formed. However, gcc's diagnostic here could be more helpf=
ul
too (perhaps including a fixup for an extra requires?)

<source>:6:14: error: expected primary-expression before '{' token
    6 |     requires { t.member(); };
      |              ^

#1 might be harder to warn about since that could *theoretically* be intend=
ed,
but if unqualified lookup for Thing actually finds a concept, seems like a =
good
bet for a diagnostic maybe?=