[clang] Add test for CWG110 "Can template functions and classes be declared in the same scope?" #111446
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Vlad Serebrennikov (Endilll) ChangesP1787R6: Wording: see changes to [temp.pre]/7 I believe the wording for the questions raised in the issue is now the definition of corresponding declarations that is given in [basic.scope.scope]/4: Then it's used as an input for the definition of potentially conflicting declarations given in [basic.scope.scope]/6. Answering the question in the title: yes, having a function template and a type with the same name that has the same target scope is well-formed. A keen eye might spot that the current [[temp.pre]/7](https://eel.is/c++draft/temp.pre#7) note doesn't reflect all of the exception from corresponding declarations definitions in [basic.scope.scope]/4, namely 4.1 and 4.2. I believe the note is defective, and opened an editorial PR against the draft to fix that: cplusplus/draft#7284. Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111446.diff 2 Files Affected:
diff --git a/clang/test/CXX/drs/cwg1xx.cpp b/clang/test/CXX/drs/cwg1xx.cpp
index d6ee0844458b1d..39423eefc1873f 100644
--- a/clang/test/CXX/drs/cwg1xx.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/CXX/drs/cwg1xx.cpp
@@ -119,6 +119,16 @@ namespace cwg109 { // cwg109: yes
};
}
+namespace cwg110 { // cwg110: 2.8
+template <typename>
+void f();
+
+class f;
+
+template <typename>
+void f(int);
+} // namespace cwg110
+
namespace cwg111 { // cwg111: dup 535
struct A { A(); A(volatile A&, int = 0); A(A&, const char * = "foo"); };
struct B : A { B(); }; // #cwg111-B
diff --git a/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html b/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html
index ba63106ccc3875..1a67b6103cf43e 100755
--- a/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html
+++ b/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html
@@ -705,7 +705,7 @@ <h2 id="cxxdr">C++ defect report implementation status</h2>
<td><a href="https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/110.html">110</a></td>
<td>CD6</td>
<td>Can template functions and classes be declared in the same scope?</td>
- <td class="unknown" align="center">Unknown</td>
+ <td class="full" align="center">Clang 2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr id="111">
<td><a href="https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/111.html">111</a></td>
|
zygoloid
reviewed
Oct 7, 2024
|
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Full details are available at: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/30/builds/7857 Here is the relevant piece of the build log for the reference |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
P1787R6:
Wording: see changes to [temp.pre]/7
I believe the wording for the questions raised in the issue is now the definition of corresponding declarations that is given in [basic.scope.scope]/4:
Then it's used as an input for the definition of potentially conflicting declarations given in [basic.scope.scope]/6.
Answering the question in the title: yes, having a function template and a type with the same name that has the same target scope is well-formed.
A keen eye might spot that the current [temp.pre]/7 note doesn't reflect all of the exceptions from the definition of corresponding declarations in [basic.scope.scope]/4, namely 4.1 and 4.2. I believe the note is defective, and I opened an editorial PR against the draft to fix that: cplusplus/draft#7284.