From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] c++: Disable -Wignored-qualifiers for template args [PR107492]
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 17:10:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c827476d-93c6-c8e4-5d5d-1046fdc68033@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y3Lea4Fo/Hl8iFNZ@redhat.com>
On 11/14/22 14:33, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 03:22:12PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 11/1/22 13:01, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>> It seems wrong to issue a -Wignored-qualifiers warning for code like:
>>>
>>> static_assert(!is_same_v<void(*)(), const void(*)()>);
>>>
>>> because there the qualifier matters. Likewise in template
>>> specialization:
>>>
>>> template<typename T> struct S { };
>>> template<> struct S<void(*)()> { };
>>> template<> struct S<const void(*)()> { }; // OK, not a redefinition
>>>
>>> I'm of the mind that we should disable the warning for template
>>> arguments, as in the patch below.
>>
>> Hmm, I'm not sure why we would want to treat template arguments differently
>> from other type-ids. Maybe only warn if funcdecl_p?
>
> I think that makes sense. There are other contexts in which cv-quals
> matter, for instance trailing-return-type.
Well, technically they matter in all contexts, including function
declaration:
const void f();
template <class T, class U> struct same;
template <class T> struct same<T,T>{};
same<decltype(f),const void()> s;
but much more likely to be a confused user in that case, whereas in a
template context it's likely to be some deep magic. :)
> Updated patch below, plus I've extended the testcase. Thanks,
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
OK.
> -- >8 --
> It seems wrong to issue a -Wignored-qualifiers warning for code like:
>
> static_assert(!is_same_v<void(*)(), const void(*)()>);
>
> because there the qualifier matters. Likewise in template
> specialization:
>
> template<typename T> struct S { };
> template<> struct S<void(*)()> { };
> template<> struct S<const void(*)()> { }; // OK, not a redefinition
>
> And likewise in other type-id contexts such as trailing-return-type:
>
> auto g() -> const void (*)();
>
> This patch limits the warning to the function declaration context only.
>
> PR c++/107492
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * decl.cc (grokdeclarator): Only emit a -Wignored-qualifiers warning
> when funcdecl_p.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * g++.dg/warn/Wignored-qualifiers3.C: New test.
> ---
> gcc/cp/decl.cc | 6 ++++-
> .../g++.dg/warn/Wignored-qualifiers3.C | 24 +++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wignored-qualifiers3.C
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl.cc b/gcc/cp/decl.cc
> index 890cfcabd35..67b9f24d7d6 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/decl.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/decl.cc
> @@ -13038,7 +13038,11 @@ grokdeclarator (const cp_declarator *declarator,
>
> if (type_quals != TYPE_UNQUALIFIED)
> {
> - if (SCALAR_TYPE_P (type) || VOID_TYPE_P (type))
> + /* It's wrong, for instance, to issue a -Wignored-qualifiers
> + warning for
> + static_assert(!is_same_v<void(*)(), const void(*)()>);
> + because there the qualifier matters. */
> + if (funcdecl_p && (SCALAR_TYPE_P (type) || VOID_TYPE_P (type)))
> warning_at (typespec_loc, OPT_Wignored_qualifiers, "type "
> "qualifiers ignored on function return type");
> /* [dcl.fct] "A volatile-qualified return type is
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wignored-qualifiers3.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wignored-qualifiers3.C
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000000..dedb38fc995
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wignored-qualifiers3.C
> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
> +// PR c++/107492
> +// { dg-do compile { target c++14 } }
> +// { dg-additional-options "-Wignored-qualifiers" }
> +
> +// Here the 'const' matters, so don't warn.
> +template<typename T> struct S { };
> +template<> struct S<void(*)()> { };
> +template<> struct S<const void(*)()> { }; // { dg-bogus "ignored" }
> +
> +template<typename T, typename U> constexpr bool is_same_v = false;
> +template<typename T> constexpr bool is_same_v<T, T> = true;
> +
> +static_assert( ! is_same_v< void(*)(), const void(*)() >, ""); // { dg-bogus "ignored" }
> +
> +// Here the 'const' matters as well -> don't warn.
> +auto g() -> const void (*)(); // { dg-bogus "ignored" }
> +auto g() -> const void (*)() { return nullptr; } // { dg-bogus "ignored" }
> +
> +// Here as well.
> +const void (*h)() = static_cast<const void (*)()>(h); // { dg-bogus "ignored" }
> +
> +// But let's keep the warning here.
> +const void f(); // { dg-warning "ignored" }
> +const void f() { } // { dg-warning "ignored" }
>
> base-commit: c41bbfcaf9d6ef5b57a7e89bba70b861c08a686b
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-15 22:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-01 17:01 [PATCH] " Marek Polacek
2022-11-03 19:22 ` Jason Merrill
2022-11-15 0:33 ` [PATCH v2] " Marek Polacek
2022-11-15 22:10 ` 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=c827476d-93c6-c8e4-5d5d-1046fdc68033@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).