* [PATCH] c++: explicit inst of template method not generated [PR110323]
@ 2024-03-08 17:02 Marek Polacek
2024-03-14 19:39 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Marek Polacek @ 2024-03-08 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GCC Patches, Jason Merrill
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
-- >8 --
Consider
constexpr int VAL = 1;
struct foo {
template <int B>
void bar(typename std::conditional<B==VAL, int, float>::type arg) { }
};
template void foo::bar<1>(int arg);
where we since r11-291 fail to emit the code for the explicit
instantiation. That's because cp_walk_subtrees/TYPENAME_TYPE now
walks TYPE_CONTEXT ('conditional' here) as well, and in a template
finds the B==VAL template argument. VAL is constexpr, which implies const,
which in the global scope implies static. constrain_visibility_for_template
then makes "struct conditional<(B == VAL), int, float>" non-TREE_PUBLIC.
Then symtab_node::needed_p checks TREE_PUBLIC, sees it's 0, and we don't
emit any code.
I thought the fix would be some ODR-esque check to not consider
constexpr variables/fns that are used just for their value. But
it turned out to be tricky. For instance, we can't skip
determine_visibility in a template; we can't even skip it for value-dep
expressions. For example, no-linkage-expr1.C has
using P = struct {}*;
template <int N>
void f(int(*)[((P)0, N)]) {}
where ((P)0, N) is value-dep, but N is not relevant here: we have to
ferret out the anonymous type. When instantiating, it's already gone.
The best I could come up with is to disregard _DECL in min_vis_expr_r
in a template while still checking type_visibility, even in a template.
PR c++/110323
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* decl2.cc (min_vis_expr_r) <case VAR_DECL>: Do nothing in a template.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C: New test.
* g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/decl2.cc | 6 ++-
.../g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C | 53 +++++++++++++++++++
.../g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C | 22 ++++++++
3 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl2.cc b/gcc/cp/decl2.cc
index 6c9fd415d40..3e035a7bf9f 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/decl2.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl2.cc
@@ -2718,7 +2718,11 @@ min_vis_expr_r (tree *tp, int */*walk_subtrees*/, void *data)
/* Fall through. */
case VAR_DECL:
case FUNCTION_DECL:
- if (! TREE_PUBLIC (t))
+ if (processing_template_decl)
+ /* In a template, we can't trust _DECLs, either. It's possible
+ they won't be ODR-used, and we could wrongly think the linkage
+ is internal (PR110323). */;
+ else if (! TREE_PUBLIC (t))
tpvis = VISIBILITY_ANON;
else
tpvis = DECL_VISIBILITY (t);
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..399c7d72756
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+// PR c++/110323
+// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } }
+
+template<bool B, class T, class F>
+struct conditional { using type = T; };
+
+template<class T, class F>
+struct conditional<false, T, F> { using type = F; };
+
+constexpr int VAL = 1;
+
+static constexpr int getval () { return 1; }
+
+template<typename>
+constexpr int TVAL = 1;
+
+static struct S {
+ constexpr operator bool() { return true; }
+} s;
+
+struct foo {
+ template <int B>
+ void bar(typename conditional<B == VAL, int, float>::type arg) { }
+
+ template <int B>
+ void baz(typename conditional<B == getval (), int, float>::type arg) { }
+
+ template <int B>
+ void qux(typename conditional<B == TVAL<int>, int, float>::type arg) { }
+
+ template <int B>
+ void lox(typename conditional<B == s, int, float>::type arg) { }
+
+ template <int B>
+ void sox(typename conditional<B == noexcept (VAL), int, float>::type arg) { }
+
+ template <int B>
+ void nim(typename conditional<B != sizeof (VAL), int, float>::type arg) { }
+};
+
+template void foo::bar<1>(int arg);
+template void foo::baz<1>(int arg);
+template void foo::qux<1>(int arg);
+template void foo::lox<1>(int arg);
+template void foo::sox<1>(int arg);
+template void foo::nim<1>(int arg);
+
+// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3barILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXeqT_L_ZL3VALEEifE4typeE" } }
+// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3bazILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXeqT_clL_ZL6getvalvEEEifE4typeE" } }
+// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3quxILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXeqT_L_Z4TVALIiEEEifE4typeE" } }
+// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3loxILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXeqT_L_ZL1sEEifE4typeE" } }
+// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3soxILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXeqT_nxL_ZL3VALEEifE4typeE" } }
+// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3nimILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXneT_szL_ZL3VALEEifE4typeE" } }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..9a870e808fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+// PR c++/110323
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+using P = struct { }*;
+using N = struct A { }*;
+
+template<bool B, class T, class F>
+struct conditional { using type = T; };
+
+struct foo {
+ template <int B>
+ void bar(typename conditional<((P) 0, B), int, float>::type arg) { }
+
+ template <int B>
+ void baz(typename conditional<((N) 0, B), int, float>::type arg) { }
+};
+
+template void foo::bar<1>(int arg);
+template void foo::baz<1>(int arg);
+
+// { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "_ZN3foo3barILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXcmcvP1XLi0EneT_Li0EEifE4typeE" } }
+// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3bazILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXcmcvP1ALi0EneT_Li0EEifE4typeE" } }
base-commit: 10c609191c4462133d6a4ea10a739167204f2cd3
--
2.44.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: explicit inst of template method not generated [PR110323]
2024-03-08 17:02 [PATCH] c++: explicit inst of template method not generated [PR110323] Marek Polacek
@ 2024-03-14 19:39 ` Jason Merrill
2024-03-15 17:48 ` Marek Polacek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2024-03-14 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marek Polacek, GCC Patches
On 3/8/24 12:02, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>
> -- >8 --
> Consider
>
> constexpr int VAL = 1;
> struct foo {
> template <int B>
> void bar(typename std::conditional<B==VAL, int, float>::type arg) { }
> };
> template void foo::bar<1>(int arg);
>
> where we since r11-291 fail to emit the code for the explicit
> instantiation. That's because cp_walk_subtrees/TYPENAME_TYPE now
> walks TYPE_CONTEXT ('conditional' here) as well, and in a template
> finds the B==VAL template argument. VAL is constexpr, which implies const,
> which in the global scope implies static. constrain_visibility_for_template
> then makes "struct conditional<(B == VAL), int, float>" non-TREE_PUBLIC.
> Then symtab_node::needed_p checks TREE_PUBLIC, sees it's 0, and we don't
> emit any code.
>
> I thought the fix would be some ODR-esque check to not consider
> constexpr variables/fns that are used just for their value. But
> it turned out to be tricky. For instance, we can't skip
> determine_visibility in a template; we can't even skip it for value-dep
> expressions. For example, no-linkage-expr1.C has
>
> using P = struct {}*;
> template <int N>
> void f(int(*)[((P)0, N)]) {}
>
> where ((P)0, N) is value-dep, but N is not relevant here: we have to
> ferret out the anonymous type. When instantiating, it's already gone.
Hmm, how is that different from the B == VAL case? In both cases we're
naming an internal entity that gets folded away.
I guess the difference is that B == VAL falls under the special
allowance in https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.def.odr#14.5.1 because it's a
constant used as a prvalue, and therefore is not odr-used under
https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.def.odr#5.2
So I would limit this change to decl_constant_var_p. Really we should
also be checking that the lvalue-rvalue conversion is applied, but
that's more complicated.
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: explicit inst of template method not generated [PR110323]
2024-03-14 19:39 ` Jason Merrill
@ 2024-03-15 17:48 ` Marek Polacek
2024-03-19 1:10 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Marek Polacek @ 2024-03-15 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: GCC Patches
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 03:39:04PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 3/8/24 12:02, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> >
> > -- >8 --
> > Consider
> >
> > constexpr int VAL = 1;
> > struct foo {
> > template <int B>
> > void bar(typename std::conditional<B==VAL, int, float>::type arg) { }
> > };
> > template void foo::bar<1>(int arg);
> >
> > where we since r11-291 fail to emit the code for the explicit
> > instantiation. That's because cp_walk_subtrees/TYPENAME_TYPE now
> > walks TYPE_CONTEXT ('conditional' here) as well, and in a template
> > finds the B==VAL template argument. VAL is constexpr, which implies const,
> > which in the global scope implies static. constrain_visibility_for_template
> > then makes "struct conditional<(B == VAL), int, float>" non-TREE_PUBLIC.
> > Then symtab_node::needed_p checks TREE_PUBLIC, sees it's 0, and we don't
> > emit any code.
> >
> > I thought the fix would be some ODR-esque check to not consider
> > constexpr variables/fns that are used just for their value. But
> > it turned out to be tricky. For instance, we can't skip
> > determine_visibility in a template; we can't even skip it for value-dep
> > expressions. For example, no-linkage-expr1.C has
> >
> > using P = struct {}*;
> > template <int N>
> > void f(int(*)[((P)0, N)]) {}
> >
> > where ((P)0, N) is value-dep, but N is not relevant here: we have to
> > ferret out the anonymous type. When instantiating, it's already gone.
>
> Hmm, how is that different from the B == VAL case? In both cases we're
> naming an internal entity that gets folded away.
>
> I guess the difference is that B == VAL falls under the special allowance in
> https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.def.odr#14.5.1 because it's a constant used as
> a prvalue, and therefore is not odr-used under
> https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.def.odr#5.2
>
> So I would limit this change to decl_constant_var_p. Really we should also
> be checking that the lvalue-rvalue conversion is applied, but that's more
> complicated.
Thanks. My previous version had it, but it didn't handle
static constexpr int getval () { return 1; }
template <int B>
void baz(typename conditional<B == getval (), int, float>::type arg) { }
I'd say that "getval()" is one of "manifestly constant-evaluated expressions that
are not value-dependent", so it should be treated the same as B == VAL. I
don't know if this is important to handle. Do you want me to poke further or
should we just go with decl_constant_var_p and leave it at that for now?
Marek
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] c++: explicit inst of template method not generated [PR110323]
2024-03-15 17:48 ` Marek Polacek
@ 2024-03-19 1:10 ` Jason Merrill
2024-03-19 19:30 ` [PATCH v2] " Marek Polacek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2024-03-19 1:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marek Polacek; +Cc: GCC Patches
On 3/15/24 13:48, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 03:39:04PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 3/8/24 12:02, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>>>
>>> -- >8 --
>>> Consider
>>>
>>> constexpr int VAL = 1;
>>> struct foo {
>>> template <int B>
>>> void bar(typename std::conditional<B==VAL, int, float>::type arg) { }
>>> };
>>> template void foo::bar<1>(int arg);
>>>
>>> where we since r11-291 fail to emit the code for the explicit
>>> instantiation. That's because cp_walk_subtrees/TYPENAME_TYPE now
>>> walks TYPE_CONTEXT ('conditional' here) as well, and in a template
>>> finds the B==VAL template argument. VAL is constexpr, which implies const,
>>> which in the global scope implies static. constrain_visibility_for_template
>>> then makes "struct conditional<(B == VAL), int, float>" non-TREE_PUBLIC.
>>> Then symtab_node::needed_p checks TREE_PUBLIC, sees it's 0, and we don't
>>> emit any code.
>>>
>>> I thought the fix would be some ODR-esque check to not consider
>>> constexpr variables/fns that are used just for their value. But
>>> it turned out to be tricky. For instance, we can't skip
>>> determine_visibility in a template; we can't even skip it for value-dep
>>> expressions. For example, no-linkage-expr1.C has
>>>
>>> using P = struct {}*;
>>> template <int N>
>>> void f(int(*)[((P)0, N)]) {}
>>>
>>> where ((P)0, N) is value-dep, but N is not relevant here: we have to
>>> ferret out the anonymous type. When instantiating, it's already gone.
>>
>> Hmm, how is that different from the B == VAL case? In both cases we're
>> naming an internal entity that gets folded away.
>>
>> I guess the difference is that B == VAL falls under the special allowance in
>> https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.def.odr#14.5.1 because it's a constant used as
>> a prvalue, and therefore is not odr-used under
>> https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.def.odr#5.2
>>
>> So I would limit this change to decl_constant_var_p. Really we should also
>> be checking that the lvalue-rvalue conversion is applied, but that's more
>> complicated.
>
> Thanks. My previous version had it, but it didn't handle
>
> static constexpr int getval () { return 1; }
>
> template <int B>
> void baz(typename conditional<B == getval (), int, float>::type arg) { }
>
> I'd say that "getval()" is one of "manifestly constant-evaluated expressions that
> are not value-dependent", so it should be treated the same as B == VAL.
But it doesn't satisfy the 14.5 rule that corresponding names need to
refer to the same entity; since getval names a function, it doesn't get
the special exemption from that rule that VAL gets.
So this should not be treated the same as B == VAL.
> I don't know if this is important to handle. Do you want me to poke further or
> should we just go with decl_constant_var_p and leave it at that for now?
Just decl_constant_var_p.
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] c++: explicit inst of template method not generated [PR110323]
2024-03-19 1:10 ` Jason Merrill
@ 2024-03-19 19:30 ` Marek Polacek
2024-03-21 3:29 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Marek Polacek @ 2024-03-19 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: GCC Patches
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 09:10:27PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 3/15/24 13:48, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 03:39:04PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > On 3/8/24 12:02, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> > > >
> > > > -- >8 --
> > > > Consider
> > > >
> > > > constexpr int VAL = 1;
> > > > struct foo {
> > > > template <int B>
> > > > void bar(typename std::conditional<B==VAL, int, float>::type arg) { }
> > > > };
> > > > template void foo::bar<1>(int arg);
> > > >
> > > > where we since r11-291 fail to emit the code for the explicit
> > > > instantiation. That's because cp_walk_subtrees/TYPENAME_TYPE now
> > > > walks TYPE_CONTEXT ('conditional' here) as well, and in a template
> > > > finds the B==VAL template argument. VAL is constexpr, which implies const,
> > > > which in the global scope implies static. constrain_visibility_for_template
> > > > then makes "struct conditional<(B == VAL), int, float>" non-TREE_PUBLIC.
> > > > Then symtab_node::needed_p checks TREE_PUBLIC, sees it's 0, and we don't
> > > > emit any code.
> > > >
> > > > I thought the fix would be some ODR-esque check to not consider
> > > > constexpr variables/fns that are used just for their value. But
> > > > it turned out to be tricky. For instance, we can't skip
> > > > determine_visibility in a template; we can't even skip it for value-dep
> > > > expressions. For example, no-linkage-expr1.C has
> > > >
> > > > using P = struct {}*;
> > > > template <int N>
> > > > void f(int(*)[((P)0, N)]) {}
> > > >
> > > > where ((P)0, N) is value-dep, but N is not relevant here: we have to
> > > > ferret out the anonymous type. When instantiating, it's already gone.
> > >
> > > Hmm, how is that different from the B == VAL case? In both cases we're
> > > naming an internal entity that gets folded away.
> > >
> > > I guess the difference is that B == VAL falls under the special allowance in
> > > https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.def.odr#14.5.1 because it's a constant used as
> > > a prvalue, and therefore is not odr-used under
> > > https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.def.odr#5.2
> > >
> > > So I would limit this change to decl_constant_var_p. Really we should also
> > > be checking that the lvalue-rvalue conversion is applied, but that's more
> > > complicated.
> >
> > Thanks. My previous version had it, but it didn't handle
> >
> > static constexpr int getval () { return 1; }
> >
> > template <int B>
> > void baz(typename conditional<B == getval (), int, float>::type arg) { }
> >
> > I'd say that "getval()" is one of "manifestly constant-evaluated expressions that
> > are not value-dependent", so it should be treated the same as B == VAL.
>
> But it doesn't satisfy the 14.5 rule that corresponding names need to refer
> to the same entity; since getval names a function, it doesn't get the
> special exemption from that rule that VAL gets.
>
> So this should not be treated the same as B == VAL.
Thanks for the explanation.
> > I don't know if this is important to handle. Do you want me to poke further or
> > should we just go with decl_constant_var_p and leave it at that for now?
>
> Just decl_constant_var_p.
Here it is:
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
-- >8 --
Consider
constexpr int VAL = 1;
struct foo {
template <int B>
void bar(typename std::conditional<B==VAL, int, float>::type arg) { }
};
template void foo::bar<1>(int arg);
where we since r11-291 fail to emit the code for the explicit
instantiation. That's because cp_walk_subtrees/TYPENAME_TYPE now
walks TYPE_CONTEXT ('conditional' here) as well, and in a template
finds the B==VAL template argument. VAL is constexpr, which implies const,
which in the global scope implies static. constrain_visibility_for_template
then makes "struct conditional<(B == VAL), int, float>" non-TREE_PUBLIC.
Then symtab_node::needed_p checks TREE_PUBLIC, sees it's 0, and we don't
emit any code.
I thought the fix would be some ODR-esque check to not consider
constexpr variables/fns that are used just for their value. But
it turned out to be tricky. For instance, we can't skip
determine_visibility in a template; we can't even skip it for value-dep
expressions. For example, no-linkage-expr1.C has
using P = struct {}*;
template <int N>
void f(int(*)[((P)0, N)]) {}
where ((P)0, N) is value-dep, but N is not relevant here: we have to
ferret out the anonymous type. When instantiating, it's already gone.
This patch uses decl_constant_var_p. This is to implement (an
approximation) [basic.def.odr]#14.5.1 and [basic.def.odr]#5.2.
PR c++/110323
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* decl2.cc (min_vis_expr_r) <case VAR_DECL>: Do nothing for
decl_constant_var_p VAR_DECLs.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C: New test.
* g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C: New test.
---
gcc/cp/decl2.cc | 6 ++-
.../g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C | 43 +++++++++++++++++++
.../g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C | 22 ++++++++++
3 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C
diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl2.cc b/gcc/cp/decl2.cc
index 2562d8aeff6..753e45e56ad 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/decl2.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl2.cc
@@ -2718,7 +2718,11 @@ min_vis_expr_r (tree *tp, int */*walk_subtrees*/, void *data)
/* Fall through. */
case VAR_DECL:
case FUNCTION_DECL:
- if (! TREE_PUBLIC (t))
+ if (decl_constant_var_p (t))
+ /* In a template, we can't trust VAR_DECLs, either. It's possible
+ they won't be ODR-used, and we could wrongly think the linkage
+ is internal (PR110323). */;
+ else if (! TREE_PUBLIC (t))
tpvis = VISIBILITY_ANON;
else
tpvis = DECL_VISIBILITY (t);
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..8b77c9deb20
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+// PR c++/110323
+// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } }
+
+template<bool B, class T, class F>
+struct conditional { using type = T; };
+
+template<class T, class F>
+struct conditional<false, T, F> { using type = F; };
+
+constexpr int VAL = 1;
+
+static constexpr int getval () { return 1; }
+
+template<typename>
+constexpr int TVAL = 1;
+
+static struct S {
+ constexpr operator bool() { return true; }
+} s;
+
+struct foo {
+ template <int B>
+ void bar(typename conditional<B == VAL, int, float>::type arg) { }
+
+ template <int B>
+ void qux(typename conditional<B == TVAL<int>, int, float>::type arg) { }
+
+ template <int B>
+ void sox(typename conditional<B == noexcept (VAL), int, float>::type arg) { }
+
+ template <int B>
+ void nim(typename conditional<B != sizeof (VAL), int, float>::type arg) { }
+};
+
+template void foo::bar<1>(int arg);
+template void foo::qux<1>(int arg);
+template void foo::sox<1>(int arg);
+template void foo::nim<1>(int arg);
+
+// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3barILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXeqT_L_ZL3VALEEifE4typeE" } }
+// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3quxILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXeqT_L_Z4TVALIiEEEifE4typeE" } }
+// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3soxILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXeqT_nxL_ZL3VALEEifE4typeE" } }
+// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3nimILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXneT_szL_ZL3VALEEifE4typeE" } }
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..9a870e808fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+// PR c++/110323
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+using P = struct { }*;
+using N = struct A { }*;
+
+template<bool B, class T, class F>
+struct conditional { using type = T; };
+
+struct foo {
+ template <int B>
+ void bar(typename conditional<((P) 0, B), int, float>::type arg) { }
+
+ template <int B>
+ void baz(typename conditional<((N) 0, B), int, float>::type arg) { }
+};
+
+template void foo::bar<1>(int arg);
+template void foo::baz<1>(int arg);
+
+// { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "_ZN3foo3barILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXcmcvP1XLi0EneT_Li0EEifE4typeE" } }
+// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3bazILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXcmcvP1ALi0EneT_Li0EEifE4typeE" } }
base-commit: bc91e3870e9c984c180b478a3449a9a2e56cd107
--
2.44.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] c++: explicit inst of template method not generated [PR110323]
2024-03-19 19:30 ` [PATCH v2] " Marek Polacek
@ 2024-03-21 3:29 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2024-03-21 3:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marek Polacek; +Cc: GCC Patches
On 3/19/24 15:30, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 09:10:27PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 3/15/24 13:48, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 03:39:04PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/24 12:02, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>>>> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- >8 --
>>>>> Consider
>>>>>
>>>>> constexpr int VAL = 1;
>>>>> struct foo {
>>>>> template <int B>
>>>>> void bar(typename std::conditional<B==VAL, int, float>::type arg) { }
>>>>> };
>>>>> template void foo::bar<1>(int arg);
>>>>>
>>>>> where we since r11-291 fail to emit the code for the explicit
>>>>> instantiation. That's because cp_walk_subtrees/TYPENAME_TYPE now
>>>>> walks TYPE_CONTEXT ('conditional' here) as well, and in a template
>>>>> finds the B==VAL template argument. VAL is constexpr, which implies const,
>>>>> which in the global scope implies static. constrain_visibility_for_template
>>>>> then makes "struct conditional<(B == VAL), int, float>" non-TREE_PUBLIC.
>>>>> Then symtab_node::needed_p checks TREE_PUBLIC, sees it's 0, and we don't
>>>>> emit any code.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the fix would be some ODR-esque check to not consider
>>>>> constexpr variables/fns that are used just for their value. But
>>>>> it turned out to be tricky. For instance, we can't skip
>>>>> determine_visibility in a template; we can't even skip it for value-dep
>>>>> expressions. For example, no-linkage-expr1.C has
>>>>>
>>>>> using P = struct {}*;
>>>>> template <int N>
>>>>> void f(int(*)[((P)0, N)]) {}
>>>>>
>>>>> where ((P)0, N) is value-dep, but N is not relevant here: we have to
>>>>> ferret out the anonymous type. When instantiating, it's already gone.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, how is that different from the B == VAL case? In both cases we're
>>>> naming an internal entity that gets folded away.
>>>>
>>>> I guess the difference is that B == VAL falls under the special allowance in
>>>> https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.def.odr#14.5.1 because it's a constant used as
>>>> a prvalue, and therefore is not odr-used under
>>>> https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.def.odr#5.2
>>>>
>>>> So I would limit this change to decl_constant_var_p. Really we should also
>>>> be checking that the lvalue-rvalue conversion is applied, but that's more
>>>> complicated.
>>>
>>> Thanks. My previous version had it, but it didn't handle
>>>
>>> static constexpr int getval () { return 1; }
>>>
>>> template <int B>
>>> void baz(typename conditional<B == getval (), int, float>::type arg) { }
>>>
>>> I'd say that "getval()" is one of "manifestly constant-evaluated expressions that
>>> are not value-dependent", so it should be treated the same as B == VAL.
>>
>> But it doesn't satisfy the 14.5 rule that corresponding names need to refer
>> to the same entity; since getval names a function, it doesn't get the
>> special exemption from that rule that VAL gets.
>>
>> So this should not be treated the same as B == VAL.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
>>> I don't know if this is important to handle. Do you want me to poke further or
>>> should we just go with decl_constant_var_p and leave it at that for now?
>>
>> Just decl_constant_var_p.
>
> Here it is:
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>
> -- >8 --
> Consider
>
> constexpr int VAL = 1;
> struct foo {
> template <int B>
> void bar(typename std::conditional<B==VAL, int, float>::type arg) { }
> };
> template void foo::bar<1>(int arg);
>
> where we since r11-291 fail to emit the code for the explicit
> instantiation. That's because cp_walk_subtrees/TYPENAME_TYPE now
> walks TYPE_CONTEXT ('conditional' here) as well, and in a template
> finds the B==VAL template argument. VAL is constexpr, which implies const,
> which in the global scope implies static. constrain_visibility_for_template
> then makes "struct conditional<(B == VAL), int, float>" non-TREE_PUBLIC.
> Then symtab_node::needed_p checks TREE_PUBLIC, sees it's 0, and we don't
> emit any code.
>
> I thought the fix would be some ODR-esque check to not consider
> constexpr variables/fns that are used just for their value. But
> it turned out to be tricky. For instance, we can't skip
> determine_visibility in a template; we can't even skip it for value-dep
> expressions. For example, no-linkage-expr1.C has
>
> using P = struct {}*;
> template <int N>
> void f(int(*)[((P)0, N)]) {}
>
> where ((P)0, N) is value-dep, but N is not relevant here: we have to
> ferret out the anonymous type. When instantiating, it's already gone.
>
> This patch uses decl_constant_var_p. This is to implement (an
> approximation) [basic.def.odr]#14.5.1 and [basic.def.odr]#5.2.
>
> PR c++/110323
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * decl2.cc (min_vis_expr_r) <case VAR_DECL>: Do nothing for
> decl_constant_var_p VAR_DECLs.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C: New test.
> * g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C: New test.
> ---
> gcc/cp/decl2.cc | 6 ++-
> .../g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C | 43 +++++++++++++++++++
> .../g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C | 22 ++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl2.cc b/gcc/cp/decl2.cc
> index 2562d8aeff6..753e45e56ad 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/decl2.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/decl2.cc
> @@ -2718,7 +2718,11 @@ min_vis_expr_r (tree *tp, int */*walk_subtrees*/, void *data)
> /* Fall through. */
> case VAR_DECL:
> case FUNCTION_DECL:
> - if (! TREE_PUBLIC (t))
> + if (decl_constant_var_p (t))
> + /* In a template, we can't trust VAR_DECLs, either. It's possible
> + they won't be ODR-used, and we could wrongly think the linkage
> + is internal (PR110323). */;
Maybe "The ODR allows definitions in different TUs to refer to distinct
constant variables with internal or no linkage, so such a reference
shouldn't affect visibility (PR110323). FIXME but only if the
lvalue-rvalue conversion is applied."
OK with that change.
> + else if (! TREE_PUBLIC (t))
> tpvis = VISIBILITY_ANON;
> else
> tpvis = DECL_VISIBILITY (t);
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..8b77c9deb20
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation6.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
> +// PR c++/110323
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } }
> +
> +template<bool B, class T, class F>
> +struct conditional { using type = T; };
> +
> +template<class T, class F>
> +struct conditional<false, T, F> { using type = F; };
> +
> +constexpr int VAL = 1;
> +
> +static constexpr int getval () { return 1; }
> +
> +template<typename>
> +constexpr int TVAL = 1;
> +
> +static struct S {
> + constexpr operator bool() { return true; }
> +} s;
> +
> +struct foo {
> + template <int B>
> + void bar(typename conditional<B == VAL, int, float>::type arg) { }
> +
> + template <int B>
> + void qux(typename conditional<B == TVAL<int>, int, float>::type arg) { }
> +
> + template <int B>
> + void sox(typename conditional<B == noexcept (VAL), int, float>::type arg) { }
> +
> + template <int B>
> + void nim(typename conditional<B != sizeof (VAL), int, float>::type arg) { }
> +};
> +
> +template void foo::bar<1>(int arg);
> +template void foo::qux<1>(int arg);
> +template void foo::sox<1>(int arg);
> +template void foo::nim<1>(int arg);
> +
> +// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3barILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXeqT_L_ZL3VALEEifE4typeE" } }
> +// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3quxILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXeqT_L_Z4TVALIiEEEifE4typeE" } }
> +// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3soxILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXeqT_nxL_ZL3VALEEifE4typeE" } }
> +// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3nimILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXneT_szL_ZL3VALEEifE4typeE" } }
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..9a870e808fa
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/explicit-instantiation7.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> +// PR c++/110323
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
> +
> +using P = struct { }*;
> +using N = struct A { }*;
> +
> +template<bool B, class T, class F>
> +struct conditional { using type = T; };
> +
> +struct foo {
> + template <int B>
> + void bar(typename conditional<((P) 0, B), int, float>::type arg) { }
> +
> + template <int B>
> + void baz(typename conditional<((N) 0, B), int, float>::type arg) { }
> +};
> +
> +template void foo::bar<1>(int arg);
> +template void foo::baz<1>(int arg);
> +
> +// { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "_ZN3foo3barILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXcmcvP1XLi0EneT_Li0EEifE4typeE" } }
> +// { dg-final { scan-assembler "_ZN3foo3bazILi1EEEvN11conditionalIXcmcvP1ALi0EneT_Li0EEifE4typeE" } }
>
> base-commit: bc91e3870e9c984c180b478a3449a9a2e56cd107
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-03-21 3:29 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-03-08 17:02 [PATCH] c++: explicit inst of template method not generated [PR110323] Marek Polacek
2024-03-14 19:39 ` Jason Merrill
2024-03-15 17:48 ` Marek Polacek
2024-03-19 1:10 ` Jason Merrill
2024-03-19 19:30 ` [PATCH v2] " Marek Polacek
2024-03-21 3:29 ` Jason Merrill
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).