On 10/28/21 07:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 04:58:53PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/21/21 04:42, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
Here is an attempt to implement DR2351 - void{} - where void{} after
pack expansion is considered valid and the same thing as void().
For templates, dunno if we have some better way to check if a CONSTRUCTOR
might be empty after pack expansion. Would that only if the constructor
only contains EXPR_PACK_EXPANSION elements and nothing else, or something
else too?
I think that's the only case. For template args there's the
pack_expansion_args_count function, but I don't think there's anything
similar for constructor elts; please feel free to add it.
Ok. But counting how many packs its CONSTRUCTOR_ELTS have and then comparing
that number against CONSTRUCTOR_NELTS seems to be unnecessarily expensive if
there are many elements, for the purpose the DR2351 code needs we can stop
as soon as we see first non-pack element.
So what about this if it passes bootstrap/regtest?
2021-10-28 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
PR c++/102820
* semantics.c (maybe_zero_constructor_nelts): New function.
(finish_compound_literal): Implement DR2351 - void{}.
If type is cv void and compound_literal has no elements, return
void_node. If type is cv void and compound_literal might have no
elements after expansion, handle it like other dependent compound
literals.
* g++.dg/cpp0x/dr2351.C: New test.
--- gcc/cp/semantics.c.jj 2021-10-27 09:16:41.161600606 +0200
+++ gcc/cp/semantics.c 2021-10-28 13:06:59.325791588 +0200
@@ -3079,6 +3079,24 @@ finish_unary_op_expr (location_t op_loc,
return result;
}
+/* Return true if CONSTRUCTOR EXPR after pack expansion could have no
+ elements. */
+
+static bool
+maybe_zero_constructor_nelts (tree expr)
+{
+ if (CONSTRUCTOR_NELTS (expr) == 0)
+ return true;
+ if (!processing_template_decl)
+ return false;
+ unsigned int i;
+ tree val;
+ FOR_EACH_CONSTRUCTOR_VALUE (CONSTRUCTOR_ELTS (expr), i, val)
Let's use
for (constructor_elt &elt : CONSTRUCTOR_ELTS (t))
+ if (!PACK_EXPANSION_P (val))
+ return false;
+ return true;
+}
+
/* Finish a compound-literal expression or C++11 functional cast with
aggregate
initializer. TYPE is the type to which the CONSTRUCTOR in COMPOUND_LITERAL
is being cast. */
@@ -3104,9 +3122,20 @@ finish_compound_literal (tree type, tree
if (!TYPE_OBJ_P (type))
{
- if (complain & tf_error)
- error ("compound literal of non-object type %qT", type);
- return error_mark_node;
+ /* DR2351 */
+ if (VOID_TYPE_P (type) && CONSTRUCTOR_NELTS (compound_literal) == 0)
+ return void_node;
This test now seems redundant with the one below (if you remove the &&
processing_template_decl).
OK with those tweaks.
+ else if (VOID_TYPE_P (type)
+ && processing_template_decl
+ && maybe_zero_constructor_nelts (compound_literal))
+ /* If there are only packs in compound_literal, it could
+ be void{} after pack expansion. */;
+ else
+ {
+ if (complain & tf_error)
+ error ("compound literal of non-object type %qT", type);
+ return error_mark_node;
+ }
}
if (template_placeholder_p (type))
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/dr2351.C.jj 2021-10-28 12:59:27.987120315
+0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/dr2351.C 2021-10-28 13:15:20.532760871 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+// DR2351
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+void
+foo ()
+{
+ void{};
+ void();
+}
+
+template <class ...T>
+void
+bar (T... t)
+{
+ void{t...};
+ void(t...);
+}
+
+void
+baz ()
+{
+ bar ();
+}
+
+template <class ...T>
+void
+qux (T... t)
+{
+ void{t...}; // { dg-error "compound literal of non-object type" }
+}
+
+void
+corge ()
+{
+ qux (1, 2);
+}
+
+template <class ...T>
+void
+garply (T... t)
+{
+ void{t..., t..., t...};
+ void(t..., t..., t...);
+}
+
+template <class ...T>
+void
+grault (T... t)
+{
+ void{t..., 1}; // { dg-error "compound literal of non-object type" }
+}
Jakub
