https://github.com/Endilll created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87748
[CWG466](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/466.html) "cv-qualifiers on pseudo-destructor type". Richard claimed that we don't implement this DR because of one ill-formed example being accepted: `a->CI::~VI();`. This example is testing the behavior of calling a pseudo-destructor via a qualified name, where components of qualified name denote the same `int` type, but with different cv-qualifications. Initially, the following wording from [expr.pseudo] quoted in CWG466 was left intact: > Furthermore, the two type-names in a pseudo-destructor-name of the form > > `:: (opt) nested-name-specifier (opt) type-name ::~ type-name` > >shall designate the same scalar type. According to this wording, the example is indeed ill-formed. [P1131R2](https://wg21.link/p1131r2) merged wording for pseudo-destructors into regular destructor wording. Among other things, [expr.pseudo] was removed, and [expr.prim.id.qual]/2 was changed to read: > Where `type-name ::~ type-name` is used, the two type-names shall refer to > the same type (ignoring cv-qualifications); I believe P1131R2 made the example well-formed. However, this wording didn't survive [P1787R6](https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p1787r6.html) "Declarations and where to find them". In that paper I don't see the intent to make the example ill-formed again, so I assume it confirmed status-quo via other wording. My _guess_ the new wording is http://eel.is/c++draft/basic.lookup#qual.general-4.6: > If a qualified name Q follows a ~: > - <...> > - The [type-name](http://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.type.simple#nt:type-name) that > is or contains Q shall refer to its (original) lookup context (ignoring > cv-qualification) under the interpretation established by at least one > (successful) lookup > performed[.](http://eel.is/c++draft/basic.lookup#qual.general-4.6.sentence-1) >From 65b160315003f446e2d7db3db79d99277816c66b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vlad Serebrennikov <serebrennikov.vladis...@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:17:26 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] [clang] Claim conformance for CWG466 [CWG466](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/466.html) "cv-qualifiers on pseudo-destructor type". --- clang/test/CXX/drs/dr4xx.cpp | 4 ++-- clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html | 2 +- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr4xx.cpp b/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr4xx.cpp index 343c4ee6f3344e..34dd638c1d9b00 100644 --- a/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr4xx.cpp +++ b/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr4xx.cpp @@ -948,7 +948,7 @@ namespace dr460 { // dr460: yes // dr464: na // dr465: na -namespace dr466 { // dr466: no +namespace dr466 { // dr466: 2.8 typedef int I; typedef const int CI; typedef volatile int VI; @@ -960,7 +960,7 @@ namespace dr466 { // dr466: no a->CI::~CI(); a->VI::~VI(); - a->CI::~VI(); // FIXME: This is invalid; CI and VI are not the same scalar type. + a->CI::~VI(); // allowed by changes to [expr.id.prim.qual]/2 introduced in P1131R2 b->~I(); b->~CI(); diff --git a/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html b/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html index 5e1e03dec1d484..887eaa1bdcd55f 100755 --- a/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html +++ b/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html @@ -2836,7 +2836,7 @@ <h2 id="cxxdr">C++ defect report implementation status</h2> <td><a href="https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/466.html";>466</a></td> <td>CD1</td> <td>cv-qualifiers on pseudo-destructor type</td> - <td class="none" align="center">No</td> + <td class="full" align="center">Clang 2.8</td> </tr> <tr id="467"> <td><a href="https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/467.html";>467</a></td> _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
