On Tue, 27 Sep 2022, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 9/26/22 15:05, Patrick Palka wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Sep 2022, Patrick Palka wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 26 Sep 2022, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > > > > > > > On 9/26/22 10:08, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > > > > > On 9/23/22 09:32, Patrick Palka wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Judging by the two commits that introduced/modified this part of > > > > > > maybe_register_incomplete_var, r196852 and r214333, ISTM the code > > > > > > is really only concerned with constexpr static data members (whose > > > > > > initializer may contain a pointer-to-member for a currently open > > > > > > class). > > > > > > So maybe we ought to restrict the branch like so, which effectively > > > > > > disables this part of maybe_register_incomplete_var during > > > > > > stream-in, and > > > > > > guarantees that outermost_open_class doesn't return NULL if the > > > > > > branch is > > > > > > taken? > > > > > > > > > > I think the problem is that we're streaming these VAR_DECLs as regular > > > > > VAR_DECLS, when we should be handling them as a new kind of object > > > > > fished > > > > > out from the template they're instantiating. (I'm guessing that'll > > > > > just be a > > > > > new tag, a type and an initializer?) > > > > > > > > > > Then on stream-in we can handle them in the same way as a non-modules > > > > > compilation handles such redeclarations.  I.e. how does: > > > > > > > > > > template struct C { }; > > > > > struct A { }; > > > > > C c1; // #1 > > > > > C c2; // #2 > > > > > > > > > > work.  Presumably at some point #2's A{} gets unified such that we > > > > > find the > > > > > instantation that occurred at #1? > > > > > > This works because the lookup in get_template_parm_object for #2's A{} > > > finds and reuses the VAR_DECL created for #1's A{}. > > > > > > But IIUC this lookup (performed via get_global_binding) isn't > > > import-aware, which I suppose explains why we don't find the VAR_DECL > > > from another TU. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I notice the template arg for C is a var decl mangled as > > > > > _ZTAXtl1AEE, > > > > > which is a 'template paramete object for A{}'.  I see that's a special > > > > > mangler 'mangle_template_parm_object', called from > > > > > get_template_parm_object.  Perhaps these VAR_DECLs need an additional > > > > > in-tree flag that the streamer can check for? > > > > > > > > I wonder if we're setting the module attachment for these variables > > > > sanely? > > > > They should be attached to the global module. My guess is the > > > > pushdecl_top_level_and_finish call in get_templatE_parm_object is not > > > > doing > > > > what is needed (as well as the other issues). > > > > > > This is a bit of a shot in the dark, but the following seems to work: > > > when pushing the VAR_DECL, we need to call set_originating_module to > > > attach it to the global module, and when looking it up, we need to do so > > > in an import-aware way. Hopefully something like this is sufficient > > > to properly handle these VAR_DECLs and we don't need to stream them > > > specially? > > > > Err, rather than changing the behavior of get_namespace_binding (which > > has many unrelated callers), I guess we could just use the already > > import-aware lookup_qualified_name instead where appropriate. WDYT of > > the following? (testing in progress) > > I'm going to have to think further. Morally these VAR_DECLs are like the > typeinfo objects -- which we have to handle specially. Reminding myself, I > see rtti.cc does the pushdecl_top_level stuff creating them -- so they go into > the slot for the current TU. But the streaming code writes > tt_tinfo_var/tt_tinfo_typedef records, and recreates the typeinfo on stream > in, using the same above pushdec_top_level path. So even though the tinfo > decls might seem attached to the current module, that doesn;t confuse the > streaming, nor create collisions on read back. Nor do we stream out tinfo > decls that are not reachable through the streamed AST (if we treated then as > normal decls, we'd stream them cos they're inthe current TU in the symbol > table. I have the same fear for these NTTPs.) > > It looks like TREE_LANG_FLAG_5 can be used to note these VAR_DECLs are NTTPs, > and then the streaming can deal with them. Let me look further. I see, thanks very much for the enlightening explanation. > > > @@ -7307,6 +7307,7 @@ get_template_parm_object (tree expr, tsubst_flags_t > > complain) > > hash_map_safe_put (tparm_obj_values, decl, copy); > > } > > + set_originating_module (decl); > > pushdecl_top_level_and_finish (decl, expr); > > this is wrong. You're attaching the decl to the current module. which will > mean conflicts when reading in such VAR_DECLs for the same NTTP from different > modules. Your test case might be hiding that as you have an interface and > implementation unit from the same module (but you should be getting some kind > of multiple definition error anyway?) Makes sense. Indeed this approach falls apart for the following testcase which uses the same NTTP argument in two different modules, for the reasons you mentioned: $ cat 100616_a.H template struct C { }; struct A { }; $ cat 100616_b.C export module pr100616_b; import "100616_a.H"; export C c1; $ cat 100616_c.C export module pr100616_c; import "100616_a.H"; export C c2; $ cat 100616_d.C import pr100616_b; import pr100616_c; using type = decltype(c1); using type = decltype(c2); // bogus error: types of c1 and c2 don't match > > > > return decl; > > @@ -29150,9 +29151,10 @@ finish_concept_definition (cp_expr id, tree init) > > static tree > > listify (tree arg) > > { > > - tree std_init_list = get_namespace_binding (std_node, > > init_list_identifier); > > + tree std_init_list = lookup_qualified_name (std_node, > > init_list_identifier); > > - if (!std_init_list || !DECL_CLASS_TEMPLATE_P (std_init_list)) > > + if (std_init_list == error_mark_node > > + || !DECL_CLASS_TEMPLATE_P (std_init_list)) > > { > > gcc_rich_location richloc (input_location); > > maybe_add_include_fixit (&richloc, "", false); What do you think about this independent change to use lookup_qualified_name instead of get_namespace_binding in listify so that the lookup for std::initializer_list is import-aware, which seems to fix PR102576? > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/pr100616_a.C > > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/pr100616_a.C > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000..788af2eb533 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/pr100616_a.C > > @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ > > +// PR c++/100616 > > +// { dg-additional-options "-std=c++20 -fmodules-ts" } > > +// { dg-module-cmi pr100616 } > > +export module pr100616; > > + > > +template struct C { }; > > +struct A { }; > > +C c1; > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/pr100616_b.C > > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/pr100616_b.C > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000..fc89cd08ac5 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/pr100616_b.C > > @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ > > +// PR c++/100616 > > +// { dg-additional-options "-std=c++20 -fmodules-ts" } > > +module pr100616; > > + > > +C c2; > > + > > +using type = decltype(c1); > > +using type = decltype(c2); > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/pr102576_a.H > > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/pr102576_a.H > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000..87ba9b52031 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/pr102576_a.H > > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ > > +// PR c++/102576 > > +// { dg-additional-options -fmodule-header } > > +// { dg-module-cmi {} } > > + > > +#include > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/pr102576_b.C > > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/pr102576_b.C > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000..10251ed5304 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/modules/pr102576_b.C > > @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ > > +// PR c++/102576 > > +// { dg-additional-options -fmodules-ts } > > + > > +import "pr102576_a.H"; > > + > > +int main() { > > + for (int i : {1, 2, 3}) > > + ; > > +} > > -- > Nathan Sidwell > >