From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] c++: fix parsing with auto(x) [PR112410]
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 18:18:33 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <73e3817f-5130-4f16-856c-e6f40ed57a71@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZVVFBevWkXfRbaVe@redhat.com>
On 11/15/23 17:24, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 05:27:03PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 11/14/23 10:58, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 09:26:41PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/23 20:13, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 07:07:03PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/9/23 14:58, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>>>>>> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- >8 --
>>>>>>> Here we are wrongly parsing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int y(auto(42));
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which uses the C++23 cast-to-prvalue feature, and initializes y to 42.
>>>>>>> However, we were treating the auto as an implicit template parameter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fixing the auto{42} case is easy, but when auto is followed by a (,
>>>>>>> I found the fix to be much more involved. For instance, we cannot
>>>>>>> use cp_parser_expression, because that can give hard errors. It's
>>>>>>> also necessary to disambiguate 'auto(i)' as 'auto i', not a cast.
>>>>>>> auto(), auto(int), auto(f)(int), auto(*), auto(i[]), auto(...), etc.
>>>>>>> are all function declarations. We have to look at more than one
>>>>>>> token to decide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, this is a most vexing parse problem. The code is synthesizing
>>>>>> template parameters before we've resolved whether the auto is a
>>>>>> decl-specifier or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this fix, I'm (ab)using cp_parser_declarator, with member_p=false
>>>>>>> so that it doesn't commit. But it handles even more complicated
>>>>>>> cases as
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int fn (auto (*const **&f)(int) -> char);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it doesn't seem to handle the extremely vexing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> struct A {
>>>>>> A(int,int);
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int a;
>>>>>> A b(auto(a), 42);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Argh. This test should indeed be accepted and is currently rejected,
>>>>> but it's a different problem: 'b' is at block scope and you can't
>>>>> have a template there. But when I put it into a namespace scope,
>>>>> it shows that my patch doesn't work correctly. I've added auto-fncast14.C
>>>>> for the latter and opened c++/112482 for the block-scope problem.
>>>>>> I think we need to stop synthesizing immediately when we see RID_AUTO, and
>>>>>> instead go back after we successfully parse a declaration and synthesize for
>>>>>> any autos we saw along the way. :/
>>>>>
>>>>> That seems very complicated :(. I had a different idea though; how
>>>>> about the following patch? The idea is that if we see that parsing
>>>>> the parameter-declaration-list didn't work, we undo what synthesize_
>>>>> did, and let cp_parser_initializer parse "(auto(42))", which should
>>>>> succeed. I checked that after cp_finish_decl y is initialized to 42.
>>>>
>>>> Nice, that's much simpler. Do you also still need the changes to
>>>> cp_parser_simple_type_specifier?
>>>
>>> I do, otherwise we parse
>>>
>>> int f (auto{42});
>>>
>>> just as if it had been
>>>
>>> int f (auto);
>>>
>>> because the {42} is consumed in the cp_parser_simple_type_specifier/RID_AUTO
>>> loop. :/
>>
>> It isn't consumed there, that loop is just scanning forward to see if
>> there's a ->. The { is still the next token when we expect it to be a
>> closing ) in cp_parser_direct_declarator:
>
> Ok, the tokens are rolled back after consuming so we can...
>
>>> /* Parse the parameter-declaration-clause. */
>>> params
>>> = cp_parser_parameter_declaration_clause (parser, flags);
>>> const location_t parens_end
>>> = cp_lexer_peek_token (parser->lexer)->location;
>>>
>>> /* Consume the `)'. */
>>> parens.require_close (parser);
>>
>> Maybe we want to abort_fully_implicit_template here rather than in
>> cp_parser_parameter_declaration_clause?
>
> ...do this instead. Much better.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
OK, thanks.
> -- >8 --
> Here we are wrongly parsing
>
> int y(auto(42));
>
> which uses the C++23 cast-to-prvalue feature, and initializes y to 42.
> However, we were treating the auto as an implicit template parameter.
>
> Fixing the auto{42} case is easy, but when auto is followed by a (,
> I found the fix to be much more involved. For instance, we cannot
> use cp_parser_expression, because that can give hard errors. It's
> also necessary to disambiguate 'auto(i)' as 'auto i', not a cast.
> auto(), auto(int), auto(f)(int), auto(*), auto(i[]), auto(...), etc.
> are all function declarations.
>
> This patch rectifies that by undoing the implicit function template
> modification. In the test above, we should notice that the parameter
> list is ill-formed, and since we've synthesized an implicit template
> parameter, we undo it by calling abort_fully_implicit_template. Then,
> we'll parse the "(auto(42))" as an initializer.
>
> PR c++/112410
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * parser.cc (cp_parser_direct_declarator): Maybe call
> abort_fully_implicit_template if it turned out the parameter list was
> ill-formed.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/cpp23/auto-fncast13.C: New test.
> * g++.dg/cpp23/auto-fncast14.C: New test.
> ---
> gcc/cp/parser.cc | 13 +++++
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp23/auto-fncast13.C | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp23/auto-fncast14.C | 9 ++++
> 3 files changed, 83 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp23/auto-fncast13.C
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp23/auto-fncast14.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.cc b/gcc/cp/parser.cc
> index 5116bcb78f6..d1104336215 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/parser.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.cc
> @@ -23594,6 +23594,19 @@ cp_parser_direct_declarator (cp_parser* parser,
> /* Consume the `)'. */
> parens.require_close (parser);
>
> + /* For code like
> + int x(auto(42));
> + A a(auto(i), 42);
> + we have synthesized an implicit template parameter and marked
> + what we thought was a function as an implicit function template.
> + But now, having seen the whole parameter list, we know it's not
> + a function declaration, so undo that. */
> + if (cp_parser_error_occurred (parser)
> + && parser->fully_implicit_function_template_p
> + /* Don't do this for the inner (). */
> + && parser->default_arg_ok_p)
> + abort_fully_implicit_template (parser);
> +
> /* If all went well, parse the cv-qualifier-seq,
> ref-qualifier and the exception-specification. */
> if (member_p || cp_parser_parse_definitely (parser))
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp23/auto-fncast13.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp23/auto-fncast13.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..1bceffb70cf
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp23/auto-fncast13.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
> +// PR c++/112410
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++23 } }
> +
> +int f1 (auto(int) -> char);
> +int f2 (auto x);
> +int f3 (auto);
> +int f4 (auto(i));
> +
> +int v1 (auto(42));
> +int v2 (auto{42});
> +int e1 (auto{i}); // { dg-error "not declared" }
> +int i;
> +int v3 (auto{i});
> +int v4 (auto(i + 1));
> +int v5 (auto(+i));
> +int v6 (auto(i = 4));
> +
> +int f5 (auto(i));
> +int f6 (auto());
> +int f7 (auto(int));
> +int f8 (auto(f)(int));
> +int f9 (auto(...) -> char);
> +// FIXME: ICEs (PR c++/89867)
> +//int f10 (auto(__attribute__((unused)) i));
> +int f11 (auto((i)));
> +int f12 (auto(i[]));
> +int f13 (auto(*i));
> +int f14 (auto(*));
> +
> +int e2 (auto{}); // { dg-error "invalid use of .auto." }
> +int e3 (auto(i, i)); // { dg-error "invalid use of .auto." }
> +
> +char bar (int);
> +char baz ();
> +char qux (...);
> +
> +void
> +g (int i)
> +{
> + f1 (bar);
> + f2 (42);
> + f3 (42);
> + f4 (42);
> + f5 (42);
> + f6 (baz);
> + f7 (bar);
> + f8 (bar);
> + f9 (qux);
> +// f10 (42);
> + f11 (42);
> + f12 (&i);
> + f13 (&i);
> + f14 (&i);
> +
> + v1 = 1;
> + v2 = 2;
> + v3 = 3;
> + v4 = 4;
> + v5 = 5;
> + v6 = 6;
> +}
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp23/auto-fncast14.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp23/auto-fncast14.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..9e7a06c87d5
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp23/auto-fncast14.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> +// PR c++/112410
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++23 } }
> +
> +struct A {
> + A(int,int);
> +};
> +
> +int a;
> +A b1(auto(a), 42);
>
> base-commit: 01bc30b222a9d2ff0269325d9e367f8f1fcef942
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-15 23:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-09 19:58 [PATCH] " Marek Polacek
2023-11-10 0:07 ` Jason Merrill
2023-11-11 1:13 ` [PATCH v2] " Marek Polacek
2023-11-14 2:26 ` Jason Merrill
2023-11-14 15:58 ` Marek Polacek
2023-11-14 22:27 ` Jason Merrill
2023-11-15 22:24 ` [PATCH v3] " Marek Polacek
2023-11-15 23:18 ` Jason Merrill [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=73e3817f-5130-4f16-856c-e6f40ed57a71@redhat.com \
--to=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=polacek@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).