-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[clang] Reapply Handle templated operators with reversed arguments #72213
Conversation
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Utkarsh Saxena (usx95) ChangesFull diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/72213.diff 3 Files Affected:
diff --git a/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst b/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
index 7a131cb520aa600..5c974eec9ed67d1 100644
--- a/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
+++ b/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
@@ -37,6 +37,27 @@ These changes are ones which we think may surprise users when upgrading to
Clang |release| because of the opportunity they pose for disruption to existing
code bases.
+- Fix a bug in reversed argument for templated operators.
+ This breaks code in C++20 which was previously accepted in C++17. Eg:
+
+ .. code-block:: cpp
+
+ struct P {};
+ template<class S> bool operator==(const P&, const S&);
+
+ struct A : public P {};
+ struct B : public P {};
+
+ // This equality is now ambiguous in C++20.
+ bool ambiguous(A a, B b) { return a == b; }
+
+ template<class S> bool operator!=(const P&, const S&);
+ // Ok. Found a matching operator!=.
+ bool fine(A a, B b) { return a == b; }
+
+ To reduce such widespread breakages, as an extension, Clang accepts this code
+ with an existing warning ``-Wambiguous-reversed-operator`` warning.
+ Fixes `GH <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53954>`_.
C/C++ Language Potentially Breaking Changes
-------------------------------------------
diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp
index f97e244120612e3..9d50a5ec39f817a 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp
@@ -7685,7 +7685,7 @@ bool Sema::CheckNonDependentConversions(
QualType ParamType = ParamTypes[I + Offset];
if (!ParamType->isDependentType()) {
unsigned ConvIdx = PO == OverloadCandidateParamOrder::Reversed
- ? 0
+ ? Args.size() - 1 - (ThisConversions + I)
: (ThisConversions + I);
Conversions[ConvIdx]
= TryCopyInitialization(*this, Args[I], ParamType,
@@ -10082,11 +10082,23 @@ getImplicitObjectParamType(ASTContext &Context, const FunctionDecl *F) {
return M->getFunctionObjectParameterReferenceType();
}
-static bool haveSameParameterTypes(ASTContext &Context, const FunctionDecl *F1,
- const FunctionDecl *F2) {
+// As a Clang extension, allow ambiguity among F1 and F2 if they represent
+// represent the same entity.
+static bool allowAmbiguity(ASTContext &Context, const FunctionDecl *F1,
+ const FunctionDecl *F2) {
if (declaresSameEntity(F1, F2))
return true;
-
+ if (F1->isTemplateInstantiation() && F2->isTemplateInstantiation()) {
+ auto PT1 = F1->getPrimaryTemplate();
+ auto PT2 = F2->getPrimaryTemplate();
+ if (declaresSameEntity(PT1, PT2) ||
+ declaresSameEntity(PT1->getInstantiatedFromMemberTemplate(),
+ PT2->getInstantiatedFromMemberTemplate()))
+ return true;
+ }
+ // TODO: It is not clear whether comparing parameters is necessary (i.e.
+ // different functions with same params). Consider removing this (as no test
+ // fail w/o it).
auto NextParam = [&](const FunctionDecl *F, unsigned &I, bool First) {
if (First) {
if (std::optional<QualType> T = getImplicitObjectParamType(Context, F))
@@ -10271,14 +10283,14 @@ bool clang::isBetterOverloadCandidate(
case ImplicitConversionSequence::Worse:
if (Cand1.Function && Cand2.Function &&
Cand1.isReversed() != Cand2.isReversed() &&
- haveSameParameterTypes(S.Context, Cand1.Function, Cand2.Function)) {
+ allowAmbiguity(S.Context, Cand1.Function, Cand2.Function)) {
// Work around large-scale breakage caused by considering reversed
// forms of operator== in C++20:
//
- // When comparing a function against a reversed function with the same
- // parameter types, if we have a better conversion for one argument and
- // a worse conversion for the other, the implicit conversion sequences
- // are treated as being equally good.
+ // When comparing a function against a reversed function, if we have a
+ // better conversion for one argument and a worse conversion for the
+ // other, the implicit conversion sequences are treated as being equally
+ // good.
//
// This prevents a comparison function from being considered ambiguous
// with a reversed form that is written in the same way.
@@ -14449,7 +14461,7 @@ ExprResult Sema::CreateOverloadedBinOp(SourceLocation OpLoc,
llvm::SmallVector<FunctionDecl*, 4> AmbiguousWith;
for (OverloadCandidate &Cand : CandidateSet) {
if (Cand.Viable && Cand.Function && Cand.isReversed() &&
- haveSameParameterTypes(Context, Cand.Function, FnDecl)) {
+ allowAmbiguity(Context, Cand.Function, FnDecl)) {
for (unsigned ArgIdx = 0; ArgIdx < 2; ++ArgIdx) {
if (CompareImplicitConversionSequences(
*this, OpLoc, Cand.Conversions[ArgIdx],
diff --git a/clang/test/CXX/over/over.match/over.match.funcs/over.match.oper/p3-2a.cpp b/clang/test/CXX/over/over.match/over.match.funcs/over.match.oper/p3-2a.cpp
index d83a176ec07eec9..486172e5d10232b 100644
--- a/clang/test/CXX/over/over.match/over.match.funcs/over.match.oper/p3-2a.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/CXX/over/over.match/over.match.funcs/over.match.oper/p3-2a.cpp
@@ -324,6 +324,79 @@ bool x = X() == X(); // expected-warning {{ambiguous}}
}
} // namespace P2468R2
+namespace GH53954{
+namespace friend_template_1 {
+struct P {
+ template <class T>
+ friend bool operator==(const P&, const T&); // expected-note {{candidate}} \
+ // expected-note {{ambiguous candidate function with reversed arguments}}
+};
+struct A : public P {};
+struct B : public P {};
+bool check(A a, B b) { return a == b; } // expected-warning {{use of overloaded operator '==' (with operand types 'A' and 'B') to be ambiguous}}
+}
+
+namespace friend_template_2 {
+struct P {
+ template <class T>
+ friend bool operator==(const T&, const P&); // expected-note {{candidate}} \
+ // expected-note {{ambiguous candidate function with reversed arguments}}
+};
+struct A : public P {};
+struct B : public P {};
+bool check(A a, B b) { return a == b; } // expected-warning {{use of overloaded operator '==' (with operand types 'A' and 'B') to be ambiguous}}
+}
+
+namespace member_template {
+struct P {
+ template<class S>
+ bool operator==(const S &) const; // expected-note {{candidate}} \
+ // expected-note {{ambiguous candidate function with reversed arguments}}
+};
+struct A : public P {};
+struct B : public P {};
+bool check(A a, B b) { return a == b; } // expected-warning {{use of overloaded operator '==' (with operand types 'A' and 'B') to be ambiguous}}
+}
+
+namespace non_member_template_1 {
+struct P {};
+template<class S>
+bool operator==(const P&, const S &); // expected-note {{candidate}} \
+ // expected-note {{ambiguous candidate function with reversed arguments}}
+
+struct A : public P {};
+struct B : public P {};
+bool check(A a, B b) { return a == b; } // expected-warning {{use of overloaded operator '==' (with operand types 'A' and 'B') to be ambiguous}}
+
+template<class S>
+bool operator!=(const P&, const S &);
+bool fine(A a, B b) { return a == b; } // Ok. Found a matching operator!=.
+}
+}
+
+namespace non_member_template_2 {
+struct P {};
+template<class S>
+bool operator==(const S&, const P&); // expected-note {{candidate}} \
+ // expected-note {{ambiguous candidate function with reversed arguments}}
+
+struct A : public P {};
+struct B : public P {};
+bool check(A a, B b) { return a == b; } // expected-warning {{use of overloaded operator '==' (with operand types 'A' and 'B') to be ambiguous}}
+}
+
+namespace class_and_member_template {
+template <class T>
+struct S {
+ template <typename OtherT>
+ bool operator==(const OtherT &rhs); // expected-note {{candidate}} \
+ // expected-note {{reversed arguments}}
+};
+struct A : S<int> {};
+struct B : S<bool> {};
+bool x = A{} == B{}; // expected-warning {{ambiguous}}
+}
+
namespace ADL_GH68901{
namespace test1 {
namespace A {
|
✅ With the latest revision this PR passed the C/C++ code formatter. |
I ran this change internally and noticed a crash for template <typename T>
class Foo {
public:
template <typename U = T>
bool operator==(const Foo& other) const;
};
bool x = Foo<int>{} == Foo<int>{}; Edit: This is fixed now. |
So currently implementations differ here: https://godbolt.org/z/11331KW6e This feels related to cwg2804 which is not live yet but can be found here. I can find the discussion on this from Kona but we ended up sending this to EWG b/c it was not clear what the right fixes for all the related issues are and we wanted design feedback. |
This PR is not completely related to cwg2804. We are already aware of the mentioned issue and are tracking it in #70210. This PR is different, and it fixes an implementation bug in rewriting template non-member operators (the conversion seq was computed incorrectly and associated with an incorrect index). The difference in compilers (godbolt) you currently see is because of this bug, and clang would also correctly consider the example as ambiguous. |
I wanted to note down the challenges of landing this and the strategy to move forward. Challenges
Strategy
|
…#72348) The last attempt at #72220 was reverted by 94d6699 because it breaks C++20 build in clang-17 and before. This is a workaround of #70210 and unblocks #72213 which rectifies rewriting template operator and thus introduces new breakages. Moving the function definition out of the class makes clang find a matching `operator!=` for the `operator==`. This makes clang not rewrite the `operator==` with reversed args. Hence, the ambiguity is resolved. The final plan, when #70210 is fixed, is to move these back to inline definition or even convert to a member template operator. This should not be urgent and could even wait for a major clang release including #72213
All the blockers to land this have been addressed. Since this is not approved, does it look fine to land @ilya-biryukov ? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I only have minor requests to add a new test and update the release note a bit.
Otherwise LGMT
} | ||
|
||
namespace friend_template_fixme { | ||
// FIXME(GH70210): This should not rewrite operator== and definitely not a hard error. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just wanted to point out that this bug is worrying as it might break some code that's not easy to rewrite.
We worked around the problem in LLVM with 77f2ccb, but you could already see how the rewrite is complicated.
I don't think we should block on that, especially given that the issue you mention requires further progress from EWG and CWG. But I would keep a close eye for people complaining about this change.
c36e5e4
to
6c2fbc3
Compare
…llvm#72348) The last attempt at llvm#72220 was reverted by llvm@94d6699 because it breaks C++20 build in clang-17 and before. This is a workaround of llvm#70210 and unblocks llvm#72213 which rectifies rewriting template operator and thus introduces new breakages. Moving the function definition out of the class makes clang find a matching `operator!=` for the `operator==`. This makes clang not rewrite the `operator==` with reversed args. Hence, the ambiguity is resolved. The final plan, when llvm#70210 is fixed, is to move these back to inline definition or even convert to a member template operator. This should not be urgent and could even wait for a major clang release including llvm#72213
…lvm#72213) Re-applies llvm#69595 with extra [diff](llvm@79181ef) ### New changes Further relax ambiguities with a warning for member operators of a template class (primary templates of such ops do not match). Eg: ```cpp template <class T> struct S { template <typename OtherT> bool operator==(const OtherT &rhs); }; struct A : S<int> {}; struct B : S<bool> {}; bool x = A{} == B{}; // accepted with a warning. ``` This is important for making llvm build using previous clang versions in C++20 mode (eg: this makes the commit e558be5 keep working with a warning instead of an error). ### Description from llvm#69595 llvm#68999 correctly computed conversion sequence for reversed args to a template operator. This was a breaking change as code, previously accepted in C++17, starts to break in C++20. Example: ```cpp struct P {}; template<class S> bool operator==(const P&, const S &); struct A : public P {}; struct B : public P {}; bool check(A a, B b) { return a == b; } // This is now ambiguous in C++20. ``` In order to minimise widespread breakages, as a clang extension, we had previously accepted such ambiguities with a warning (`-Wambiguous-reversed-operator`) for non-template operators. Due to the same reasons, we extend this relaxation for template operators. Fixes llvm#53954
Re-applies #69595 with extra diff
New changes
Further relax ambiguities with a warning for member operators of a template class (primary templates of such ops do not match). Eg:
This is important for making llvm build using previous clang versions in C++20 mode (eg: this makes the commit e558be5 keep working with a warning instead of an error).
Description from #69595
#68999 correctly computed conversion sequence for reversed args to a template operator. This was a breaking change as code, previously accepted in C++17, starts to break in C++20.
Example:
In order to minimise widespread breakages, as a clang extension, we had
previously accepted such ambiguities with a warning
(
-Wambiguous-reversed-operator
) for non-template operators. Due to thesame reasons, we extend this relaxation for template operators.
Fixes #53954