This document contains the C++ core language issues that have been categorized as Defect Reports by the Committee (J16 + WG21), that is, issues with status "DR," "WP," "CD1," "CD2," "TC1," and "FDIS," along with their proposed resolutions. Issues with DR and WP status are NOT part of the International Standard for C++. They are provided for informational purposes only, as an indication of the intent of the Committee. They should not be considered definitive until or unless they appear in an approved Technical Corrigendum or revised International Standard for C++.

This document is part of a group of related documents that together describe the issues that have been raised regarding the C++ Standard. The other documents in the group are:

• Active Issues List, which contains explanatory material for the entire document group and a list of the issues that have not yet been acted upon by the Committee.
• Closed Issues List, which contains the issues which the Committee has decided are not defects in the International Standard, including a brief rationale explaining the reason for the decision.
• Table of Contents, which contains a summary listing of all issues in numerical order.
• Index by Section, which contains a summary listing of all issues arranged in the order of the sections of the Standard with which they deal most directly.
• Index by Status, which contains a summary listing of all issues grouped by status.

For more information, including a description of the meaning of the issue status codes and instructions on reporting new issues, please see the Active Issues List.

Section references in this document reflect the section numbering of document WG21 N3290.

Issues with "DR" Status

712. Are integer constant operands of a conditional-expression “used?”

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

In describing static data members initialized inside the class definition, 9.4.2 [class.static.data] paragraph 3 says,

The member shall still be defined in a namespace scope if it is used in the program...

The definition of “used” is in 3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 1:

An object or non-overloaded function whose name appears as a potentially-evaluated expression is used unless it is an object that satisfies the requirements for appearing in a constant expression (5.19 [expr.const]) and the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion (4.1 [conv.lval]) is immediately applied.

Now consider the following example:

    struct S {
      static const int a = 1;
      static const int b = 2;
    };
    int f(bool x) {
      return x ? S::a : S::b;
    }

According to the current wording of the Standard, this example requires that S::a and S::b be defined in a namespace scope. The reason for this is that, according to 5.16 [expr.cond] paragraph 4, the result of this conditional-expression is an lvalue and the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion is applied to that, not directly to the object, so this fails the “immediately applied” requirement. This is surprising and unfortunate, since only the values and not the addresses of the static data members are used. (This problem also applies to the proposed resolution of issue 696.)

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Divide 3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 2 into two paragraphs and change as follows:

An expression is potentially evaluated unless it is an unevaluated operand (Clause 5) or a subexpression thereof. The set of potential results of an expression e is defined as:

• if e is an id-expression (5.1.1 [expr.prim.general]), the set whose sole member is e,

• if e is a class member access (5.2.5 [expr.ref]), the set of potential results of the object expression,

• if e is a pointer-to-member expression (5.5 [expr.mptr.oper]) whose second operand is a constant expression, the set of potential results of the object expression,

• if e has the form (e1), the set of potential results of e1,

• if e is a glvalue conditional expression (5.16 [expr.cond]), the union of the sets of potential results of the second and third operands,

• if e is a comma expression (5.18 [expr.comma]), the set of potential results of the right operand,

• otherwise, the empty set.

A variable x whose name appears as a potentially-evaluated expression ex is odr-used unless it x is an object that satisfies the requirements for appearing in a constant expression (5.19 [expr.const]) and ex is an element of the set of potential results of an expression e, where either the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion (4.1 [conv.lval]) is immediately applied to e, or e is a discarded-value expression (Clause 5 [expr]). this is odr-used...

1260. Incorrect use of term “overloaded” in description of odr-use

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

The current wording of 3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 2 uses the term “overloaded” differently from its definition in 13 [over] paragraph 1. For example, names found by argument-dependent lookup are not “overloaded” if they are not declared in the same scope. The phrasing should be reconciled between the two sections.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 2 as follows:

...A non-overloaded function whose name appears as a potentially-evaluated expression is odr-used if it is the unique lookup result or it is the selected or a member of a set of candidate overloaded functions (3.4 [basic.lookup], 13.3 [over.match], 13.4 [over.over]), if selected by overload resolution when referred to from a potentially-evaluated expression, is odr-used, unless it is a pure virtual function and its name is not explicitly qualified...

1362. Complete type required for implicit conversion to T&

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

The requirement in 3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 4 that a type T must be complete if an expression is implicitly converted to a pointer to T or reference to T inadvertently applies to user-defined conversions, although it was intended only to refer to built-in conversions.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change the indicated bullet of 3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 4 as follows:

• an expression that is not a null pointer constant, and has type other than cv void*, is converted to the type pointer to T or reference to T using an implicit a standard conversion (Clause 4 [conv]), a dynamic_cast (5.2.7 [expr.dynamic.cast]) or a static_cast (5.2.9 [expr.static.cast]), or

1352. Inconsistent class scope and completeness rules

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

The rules regarding class scope and when the class is considered to be complete (normally implemented by deferred parsing of portions of class member declarations) are inconsistent and need to be clarified.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

1. Change 3.3.7 [basic.scope.class] paragraph 1 as follows:

1. The potential scope of a name declared in a class consists not only of the declarative region following the name's point of declaration, but also of all function bodies, default arguments, and brace-or-equal-initializers of non-static data members, and default arguments in that class (including such things in nested classes).

2. Change 3.4.1 [basic.lookup.unqual] pargraph 7 as follows:

A name used in the definition of a class X outside of a member function body, default argument, brace-or-equal-initializer of a non-static data member, or nested class definition²⁹ shall be declared in one of the following ways:...

3. Change 3.4.1 [basic.lookup.unqual] paragraph 8 as follows:

A For the members of a class X, a name used in a member function body, in a default argument, in the brace-or-equal-initializer of a non-static data member (9.2 [class.mem]), or in the definition of a class member function (9.3 [class.mfct]) of class X outside of the definition of X, following the function's member's declarator-id [Footnote: That is, an unqualified name that occurs, for instance, in a type or default argument in the parameter-declaration-clause or in the function body exception-specification. —end footnote], or in the brace-or-equal-initializer of a non-static data member (9.2 [class.mem]) of class X shall be declared in one of the following ways:...

1003. Acceptable definitions of main

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

The specification of the forms of the definition of main that an impliementation is required to accept is clear in C99 that the parameter names and the exact syntactic form of the types can vary. Although it is reasonable to assume that a C++ implementation would accept a definition like

    int main(int foo, char** bar) { /* ... */ }

instead of the canonical

    int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { /* ... */ }

it might be a good idea to clarify the intent using wording similar to C99's.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 3.6.1 [basic.start.main] paragraph 2 as follows:

...All implementations shall allow both of the following definitions of main:

  int main() { /* ... */ }

and

  int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { /* ... */ }

• function of () returning int and

• function of (int, pointer to pointer to char) returning int

as the type of main (8.3.5 [dcl.fct]. In the latter form, for purposes of exposition, the first function parameter is called argc and the second function parameter is called argv, where argc shall be the number of arguments...

597. Conversions applied to out-of-lifetime non-POD lvalues

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

An lvalue referring to an out-of-lifetime non-POD class objects can be used in limited ways, subject to the restrictions in 3.8 [basic.life] paragraph 6:

if the original object will be or was of a non-POD class type, the program has undefined behavior if:

• the lvalue is used to access a non-static data member or call a non-static member function of the object, or

• the lvalue is implicitly converted (4.10 [conv.ptr]) to a reference to a base class type, or

• the lvalue is used as the operand of a static_cast (5.2.9 [expr.static.cast]) except when the conversion is ultimately to cv char& or cv unsigned char& ), or

• the lvalue is used as the operand of a dynamic_cast (5.2.7 [expr.dynamic.cast]) or as the operand of typeid.

There are at least a couple of questionable things in this list. First, there is no “implicit conversion to a reference to a base class,” as assumed by the second bullet. Presumably this is intended to say that the lvalue is bound to a reference to a base class, and the cross-reference should be to 8.5.3 [dcl.init.ref], not to 4.10 [conv.ptr] (which deals with pointer conversions). However, even given that adjustment, it is not clear why it is forbidden to bind a reference to a non-virtual base class of an out-of-lifetime object, as that is just an address offset calculation. (Binding to a virtual base, of course, would require access to the value of the object and thus cannot be done outside the object's lifetime.)

The third bullet also appears questionable. It's not clear why static_cast is discussed at all here, as the only permissible static_cast conversions involving reference types and non-POD classes are to references to base or derived classes and to the same type, modulo cv-qualification; if implicit “conversion” to a base class reference is forbidden in the second bullet, why would an explicit conversion be permitted in the third? Was this intended to refer to reinterpret_cast? Also, is there a reason to allow char types but disallow array-of-char types (which are more likely to be useful than a single char)?

Proposed resolution (March, 2008):

1. Change 3.8 [basic.life] paragraph 5 as follows:

...If the object will be or was of a non-trivial class type, the program has undefined behavior if:

• the pointer is used to access a non-static data member or call a non-static member function of the object, or

• the pointer is implicitly converted (4.10 [conv.ptr]) to a pointer to a virtual base class type, or

• the pointer is used as the operand of a static_cast (5.2.9 [expr.static.cast]) (except when the conversion is to void*, or to void* and subsequently to char*, or unsigned char*). pointer to cv void, or to pointer to cv void and subsequently to pointer to cv char or pointer to cv unsigned char, or

• the pointer is used as the operand of a dynamic_cast (5.2.7 [expr.dynamic.cast])...

2. Change 3.8 [basic.life] paragraph 6 as follows:

...if the original object will be or was of a non-trivial class type, the program has undefined behavior if:

• the lvalue is used to access a non-static data member or call a non-static member function of the object, or

• the lvalue is implicitly converted (4.10 [conv.ptr]) bound to a reference to a virtual base class type (8.5.3 [dcl.init.ref]), or

• the lvalue is used as the operand of a static_cast (5.2.9 [expr.static.cast]) except when the conversion is ultimately to cv char& or cv unsigned char&, or

• the lvalue is used as the operand of a dynamic_cast (5.2.7 [expr.dynamic.cast]) or as the operand of typeid.

[Drafting notes: Paragraph 5 was changed to track the changes to paragraph 6. See also the resolution for issue 658.]

483. Normative requirements on integral ranges

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

There is no normative requirement on the ranges of the integral types, although the footnote in 3.9.1 [basic.fundamental] paragraph 2 indicates the intent (for int, at least) that they match the values given in the <climits> header. Should there be an explicit requirement of some sort?

(See also paper N1693.)

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 3.9.1 [basic.fundamental] paragraph 3 as follows:

...collectively called the extended integer types. The signed and unsigned integral types shall satisfy the constraints given in ISO C 5.2.4.2.1.

292. Deallocation on exception in new before arguments evaluated

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

According to the C++ Standard section 5.3.4 [expr.new] paragraph 21 it is unspecified whether the allocation function is called before evaluating the constructor arguments or after evaluating the constructor arguments but before entering the constructor.

On top of that paragraph 17 of the same section insists that

If any part of the object initialization described above [Footnote: This may include evaluating a new-initializer and/or calling a constructor.] terminates by throwing an exception and a suitable deallocation function is found, the deallocation function is called to free the memory in which the object was being constructed... If no unambiguous matching deallocation function can be found, propagating the exception does not cause the object's memory to be freed...

Now suppose we have:

1. An implementation that always evaluates the constructor arguments first (for a new-expression that creates an object of a class type and has a new-initializer) and calls the allocation function afterwards.
2. A class like this:

       struct  copy_throw  {
          copy_throw(const copy_throw&)
          {   throw  std::logic_error("Cannot copy!");   }
          copy_throw(long, copy_throw)
          {   }
          copy_throw()
          {   }
       };
   

3. And a piece of code that looks like the one below:

       int  main()
       try  {
          copy_throw   an_object,     /* undefined behaviour */
             * a_pointer = ::new copy_throw(0, an_object);
          return  0;
       }
       catch(const std::logic_error&)
       {   }
   

Here the new-expression '::new copy_throw(0, an_object)' throws an exception when evaluating the constructor's arguments and before the allocation function is called. However, 5.3.4 [expr.new] paragraph 17 prescribes that in such a case the implementation shall call the deallocation function to free the memory in which the object was being constructed, given that a matching deallocation function can be found.

So a call to the Standard library deallocation function '::operator delete(void*)' shall be issued, but what argument is an implementation supposed to supply to the deallocation function? As per 5.3.4 [expr.new] paragraph 17 - the argument is the address of the memory in which the object was being constructed. Given that no memory has yet been allocated for the object, this will qualify as using an invalid pointer value, which is undefined behaviour by virtue of 3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation] paragraph 4.

Suggested resolution:

Change the first sentence of 5.3.4 [expr.new] paragraph 17 to read:

If the memory for the object being created has already been successfully allocated and any part of the object initialization described above...

Proposed resolution (March, 2008):

Change 5.3.4 [expr.new] paragraph 18 as follows:

If any part of the object initialization described above [Footnote: ...] terminates by throwing an exception, storage has been obtained for the object, and a suitable deallocation function can be found, the deallocation function is called...

1305. alignof applied to array of unknown size

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 5.3.6 [expr.alignof] paragraph 1 as follows:

An alignof expression yields the alignment requirement of its operand type. The operand shall be a type-id representing a complete object type or an array thereof or a reference to a complete object type one of those types.

1340. Complete type in member pointer expressions

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

1. Change 5.5 [expr.mptr.oper] paragraph 2 as follows:

The binary operator .* binds its second operand, which shall be of type “pointer to member of T” (where T is a completely-defined class type) to its first operand...

2. Change 5.5 [expr.mptr.oper] paragraph 3 as follows:

The binary operator ->* binds its second operand, which shall be of type “pointer to member of T” (where T is a completely-defined class type) to its first operand...

1264. Use of this in constexpr constructor

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 1369.

1293. String literals in constant expressions

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 5.19 [expr.const] paragraph 2 as follows:

• an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion (4.1 [conv.lval]) unless it is applied to

• a glvalue of integral or enumeration type that refers to a non-volatile const object with a preceding initialization, initialized with a constant expression [Note: a string literal (2.14.5 [lex.string]) corresponds to an array of such objects. —end note], or

• ...

1311. Volatile lvalues in constant expressions

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 5.19 [expr.const] paragraph 2 as follows:

• an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion (4.1 [conv.lval]) unless it is applied to

• a non-volatile glvalue of integral or enumeration type that refers to a non-volatile const object with a preceding initialization, initialized with a constant expression, or

• a non-volatile glvalue of literal type that refers to a non-volatile object defined with constexpr, or that refers to a sub-object of such an object, or

• a non-volatile glvalue of literal type that refers to a non-volatile temporary object whose lifetime has not ended, initialized with a constant expression;

1364. constexpr function parameters

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Use of a parameter in a constexpr function appears to be ill-formed, because the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion on the parameter is not one of those permitted in a constant expression.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

1. Change the indicated bullet of 5.19 [expr.const] paragraph 2 as follows:

• an invocation of a constexpr constructor with arguments that, when substituted by function invocation substitution (7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr]), do not produce all constant expressions for the constructor calls and full-expressions in the mem-initializers (including conversions); [Example:...

2. Delete the final bullet of 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 3 and move the deleted "." to the preceding sub-bullet:

• every constructor call and implicit conversion used in initializing the return value (6.6.3 [stmt.return], 8.5 [dcl.init]) shall be one of those allowed in a constant expression (5.19 [expr.const]).

3. Delete the final bullet of 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 4 and change the preceding bullet as follows:

• every assignment-expression that is an initializer-clause appearing directly or indirectly within a brace-or-equal-initializer for a non-static data member that is not named by a mem-initializer-id shall be a constant expression; and.

• every implicit conversion used in converting a constructor argument to the corresponding parameter type and converting a full-expression to the corresponding member type shall be one of those allowed in a constant expression.

1365. Calling undefined constexpr functions

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

The current wording appears to allow calling a constexpr function that is never defined within the body of a constexpr function. (The wording was intended to allow mutually-recursive constexpr functions but require that the not-yet-defined function be defined before it would be needed in an actual constant expression.)

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change the indicated bullet of 5.19 [expr.const] paragraph 2 as follows:

• an invocation of an undefined constexpr function or an undefined constexpr constructor outside the definition of a constexpr function or a constexpr constructor;

1367. Use of this in a constant expression

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

The provisions allowing the use of this in a constant expression appear to be unnecessary, as any uses of this in a constant expression that are valid will be replaced by function invocation substitution.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 1369.

1366. Deleted constexpr constructors and virtual base classes

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

The requirement that a class with a constexpr constructor cannot have a virtual base only applies to constructors with non-deleted and non-defaulted function-bodys. This seems like an oversight.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 4 as follows:

In a The definition of a constexpr constructor, each of the parameter types shall be a literal type. In addition, either its function-body shall be = delete or = default or it shall satisfy the following constraints:

• the class shall not have any virtual base classes;

• each of the parameter types shall be a literal type;

• its function-body shall not be a function-try-block;

In addition, either its function-body shall be = delete or it shall satisfy the following constraints:

• either its function-body shall be = default or the compound-statement of its function-body shall contain only...

1369. Function invocation substitution of this

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Function invocation substitution (7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 5) seems underspecified with respect to this.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

1. Change the indicated bullet of 5.19 [expr.const] paragraph 2 as follows:

• this (5.1 [expr.prim] 5.1.1 [expr.prim.general]) unless it appears as the postfix-expression in a class member access expression, including the result of the implicit transformation in the body of a non-static member function (9.3.1 [class.mfct.non-static]) [Note: when evaluating a constant expression, function invocation substitution (7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr]) replaces each occurrence of this in a constexpr member function with a pointer to the class object. —end note];

2. Change 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 5 as follows (converting the running text into a bulleted list):

Function invocation substitution for a call of a constexpr function or of a constexpr constructor means:

• implicitly converting each argument to the corresponding parameter type as if by copy-initialization,⁹¹

• substituting that converted expression for each use of the corresponding parameter in the function-body,

• in a member function, substituting for each use of this (9.3.2 [class.this]) a prvalue pointer whose value is the address of the object for which the member function is called, and

• for in a constexpr functions, implicitly converting the resulting returned expression or braced-init-list to the return type of the function as if by copy-initialization.

Such substitution...

This resolution also resolves issues 1264 and 1367.

539. Constraints on type-specifier-seq

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

The constraints on type-specifiers given in 7.1.6 [dcl.type] paragraphs 2 and 3 (at most one type-specifier except as specified, at least one type-specifier, no redundant cv-qualifiers) are couched in terms of decl-specifier-seqs and declarations. However, they should also apply to constructs that are not syntactically declarations and that are defined to use type-specifier-seqs, including 5.3.4 [expr.new], 6.6 [stmt.jump], 8.1 [dcl.name], and 12.3.2 [class.conv.fct].

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 7.1.6 [dcl.type] paragraph 3 as follows:

At Except in a declaration of a constructor, destructor, or conversion function, at least one type-specifier that is not a cv-qualifier is required in a declaration unless it declares a constructor, destructor or conversion function shall appear in a complete type-specifier-seq or a complete decl-specifier-seq.⁹² A type-specifier-seq shall not define...

(Note: paper N2546, voted into the Working Draft in February, 2008, addresses part of this issue.)

1265. Mixed use of the auto specifier

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

The current wording of 7.1.6.4 [dcl.spec.auto] does not appear to forbid using the auto specifier for both a function declaration with a trailing return type and a variable definition in the same declaration, e.g.,

    auto f() -> int, i = 0;

(See also issue 1347.)

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 7.1.6.4 [dcl.spec.auto] paragraph 7 as follows:

If the list of declarators contains more than one declarator, they shall all form declarations of variables. The the type of each declared variable is determined as described above. If, and if the type deduced for the template parameter U is not the same in each deduction, the program is ill-formed. [Example:...

1346. expression-list initializers and the auto specifier

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

7.1.6.4 [dcl.spec.auto] does not address the case when the initializer for an auto variable is a parenthesized expression-list.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 7.1.6.4 [dcl.spec.auto] paragraph 3 as follows:

...auto shall appear as one of the decl-specifiers in the decl-specifier-seq and the decl-specifier-seq shall be followed by one or more init-declarators, each of which shall have a non-empty initializer. In an initializer of the form

( expression-list )

the expression-list shall be a single assignment-expression. [Example:...

1347. Consistency of auto in multiple-declarator declarations

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

The intent of 7.1.6.4 [dcl.spec.auto] paragraph 7 appears to have been that the type represented by auto should be the same for each declarator in the declaration. However, the current wording does not achieve that goal. For example, in

    auto a = 0, b = { 1, 2, 2 };

the auto specifier represents int in the first declarator and std::initializer_list<int> in the second. (See also issue 1265.)

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Move the example in 7.1.6.4 [dcl.spec.auto] paragraph 7 into that of paragraph 6 and change paragraph 7 as follows:

...[Example:

  auto x1 = { 1, 2 };   // decltype(x1) is std::initializer_list<int>
  auto x2 = { 1, 2.0 }; // error: cannot deduce element type

  const auto &i = expr;

The type of i is the deduced type of the parameter u in the call f(expr) of the following invented function template:

  template <class U> void f(const U& u);

—end example]

If the list of declarators init-declarator-list contains more than one declarator init-declarator, the type of each declared variable is determined as described above. If the type deduced for the template parameter U that replaces the occurrence of auto is not the same in each deduction, the program is ill-formed.

[Example:

  const auto &i = expr;

The type of i is the deduced type of the parameter u in the call f(expr) of the following invented function template:

  template <class U> void f(const U& u);
  auto x = 5, *y = &x;       // OK: auto is int
  auto a = 5, b = { 1, 2 };  // error: different types for auto

—end example]

565. Conflict rules for using-declarations naming function templates

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

The Standard does not appear to specify what happens for code like the following:

    namespace one {
      template<typename T> void fun(T);
    }

    using one::fun;

    template<typename T> void fun(T);

7.3.3 [namespace.udecl] paragraph 13 does not appear to apply because it deals only with functions, not function templates:

If a function declaration in namespace scope or block scope has the same name and the same parameter types as a function introduced by a using-declaration, and the declarations do not declare the same function, the program is ill-formed.

John Spicer: For function templates I believe the rule should be that if they have the same function type (parameter types and return type) and have identical template parameter lists, the program is ill-formed.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 7.3.3 [namespace.udecl] paragraph 14 as follows:

If a function declaration in namespace scope or block scope has the same name and the same parameter types parameter-type-list (8.3.5 [dcl.fct]) as a function introduced by a using-declaration, and the declarations do not declare the same function, the program is ill-formed. If a function template declaration in namespace scope has the same name, parameter-type-list, return type, and template parameter list as a function template introduced by a using-declaration, the program is ill-formed. [Note: Two using-declarations may introduce functions with the same name and the same parameter types parameter-type-list. If, for a call to an unqualified function name, function overload resolution selects the functions introduced by such using-declarations, the function call is ill-formed. [Example:...

1297. Misplaced function attribute-specifier

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

1. Change the grammar in 8 [dcl.decl] paragraph 4 as follows:

parameters-and-qualifiers:
( parameter-declaration-clause ) attribute-specifier-seq_opt cv-qualifier-seq_opt
ref-qualifier_opt exception-specification_opt attribute-specifier-seq_opt

2. Change the grammar snippet in 13.3.1.1.2 [over.call.object] paragraph 2 as follows:

operator conversion-type-id ( ) attribute-specifier-seq_opt cv-qualifier attribute-specifier-seq_opt ;

482. Qualified declarators in redeclarations

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

According to 8.3 [dcl.meaning] paragraph 1,

A declarator-id shall not be qualified except for the definition of a member function (9.3 [class.mfct]) or static data member (9.4 [class.static]) outside of its class, the definition or explicit instantiation of a function or variable member of a namespace outside of its namespace, or the definition of a previously declared explicit specialization outside of its namespace, or the declaration of a friend function that is a member of another class or namespace (11.3 [class.friend]). When the declarator-id is qualified, the declaration shall refer to a previously declared member of the class or namespace to which the qualifier refers...

This restriction prohibits examples like the following:

    void f();
    void ::f();        // error: qualified declarator

    namespace N {
      void f();
      void N::f() { }  // error: qualified declarator
    }

There doesn't seem to be any good reason for disallowing such declarations, and a number of implementations accept them in spite of the Standard's prohibition. Should the Standard be changed to allow them?

Notes from the April, 2006 meeting:

In discussing issue 548, the CWG agreed that the prohibition of qualified declarators inside their namespace should be removed.

Proposed resolution (October, 2006):

Remove the indicated words from 8.3 [dcl.meaning] paragraph 1:

...An unqualified-id occurring in a declarator-id shall be a simple identifier except for the declaration of some special functions (12.3 [class.conv], 12.4 [class.dtor], 13.5 [over.oper]) and for the declaration of template specializations or partial specializations (). A declarator-id shall not be qualified except for the definition of a member function (9.3 [class.mfct]) or static data member (9.4 [class.static]) outside of its class, the definition or explicit instantiation of a function or variable member of a namespace outside of its namespace, or the definition of a previously declared explicit specialization outside of its namespace, or the declaration of a friend function that is a member of another class or namespace (11.3 [class.friend]). When the declarator-id is qualified, the declaration shall refer to a previously declared member of the class or namespace to which the qualifier refers, and the member shall not have been introduced by a using-declaration in the scope of the class or namespace nominated by the nested-name-specifier of the declarator-id...

[Drafting note: The omission of “outside of its class” here does not give permission for redeclaration of class members; that is still prohibited by 9.2 [class.mem] paragraph 1. The removal of the enumeration of the kinds of declarations in which a qualified-id can appear does allow a typedef declaration to use a qualified-id, which was not permitted before; if that is undesirable, the prohibition can be reinstated here.]

332. cv-qualified void parameter types

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

8.3.5 [dcl.fct]/2 restricts the use of void as parameter type, but does not mention CV qualified versions. Since void f(volatile void) isn't a callable function anyway, 8.3.5 [dcl.fct] should also ban cv-qualified versions. (BTW, this follows C)

Suggested resolution:

A possible resolution would be to add (cv-qualified) before void in

The parameter list (void) is equivalent to the empty parameter list. Except for this special case, (cv-qualified) void shall not be a parameter type (though types derived from void, such as void*, can).

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 577.

577. void in an empty parameter list

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

8.3.5 [dcl.fct] paragraph 2 says,

The parameter list (void) is equivalent to the empty parameter list.

This special case is intended for C compatibility, but C99 describes it differently (6.7.5.3 paragraph 10):

The special case of an unnamed parameter of type void as the only item in the list specifies that the function has no parameters.

The C99 formulation allows typedefs for void, while C++ (and C90) accept only the keyword itself in this role. Should the C99 approach be adopted?

Notes from the October, 2006 meeting:

The CWG did not take a formal position on this issue; however, there was some concern expressed over the treatment of function templates and member functions of class templates if the C++ rule were changed: for a template parameter T, would a function taking a single parameter of type T become a no-parameter function if it were instantiated with T = void?

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 8.3.5 [dcl.fct] paragraph 4 as follows:

...If the parameter-declaration-clause is empty, the function takes no arguments. The parameter list (void) A parameter list consisting of a single unnamed parameter of non-dependent type void is equivalent to the an empty parameter list. Except for this special case, a parameter shall not have type cv void shall not be a parameter type (though types derived from void, such as void*, can). If the parameter-declaration-clause terminates...

This resolution also resolves issue 332.

1226. Converting a braced-init-list default argument

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

According to the new wording of 8.3.6 [dcl.fct.default] paragraph 5,

A default argument is implicitly converted (Clause 4 [conv]) to the parameter type.

This is incorrect when the default argument is a braced-init-list. That sentence doesn't seem to be necessary, but if it is kept, it should be recast in terms of initialization rather than conversion.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Delete the first sentence of 8.3.6 [dcl.fct.default] paragraph 5:

A default argument is implicitly converted (Clause 4 [conv]) to the parameter type.

1333. Omission of const in a defaulted copy constructor

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

1. Change 8.4.2 [dcl.fct.def.default] paragraph 2 as follows:

...If a function is explicitly defaulted on its first declaration,

• ...

• in the case of a copy constructor, move constructor, copy assignment operator, or move assignment operator, it shall have the same parameter type as if it had been implicitly declared.

2. Change 12.8 [class.copy] paragraph 12 as follows:

A copy/move constructor for class X is trivial if it is not user-provided, its declared parameter type is the same as if it had been implicitly declared, and if...

3. Change 12.8 [class.copy] paragraph 25 as follows:

A copy/move assignment operator for class X is trivial if it is not user-provided, its declared parameter type is the same as if it had been implicitly declared, and if...

1355. Aggregates and “user-provided” constructors

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

The definition of “user-provided” given in 8.4.2 [dcl.fct.def.default] paragraph 4 applies only to special member functions, while the definition of an aggregate in 8.5.1 [dcl.init.aggr] paragraph 1 relies on that term in identifying constructors that make a class a non-aggregate. As a result, a class with a non-special constructor is considered an aggregate.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 8.4.2 [dcl.fct.def.default] paragraph 4 as follows:

A special member function is user-provided if it is user-declared and not explicitly defaulted or deleted on its first declaration...

[Drafting note: This makes a class with only a deleted initializer-list constructor an aggregate.]

1093. Value-initializing non-objects

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

8.5 [dcl.init] paragraph 7 only describes how to initialize objects:

To value-initialize an object of type T means:

However, 5.2.3 [expr.type.conv] paragraph 2 calls for value-initializing prvalues, which in the case of scalar types are not objects:

The expression T(), where T is a simple-type-specifier or typename-specifier for a non-array complete object type or the (possibly cv-qualified) void type, creates a prvalue of the specified type, which is value-initialized (8.5 [dcl.init]; no initialization is done for the void() case).

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 5.2.3 [expr.type.conv] paragraph 2 as follows:

The expression T(), where T is a simple-type-specifier or typename-specifier for a non-array complete object type or the (possibly cv-qualified) void type, creates a prvalue of the specified type,which is value-initialized (8.5 [dcl.init] type, whose value is that produced by value-initializing (8.5 [dcl.init]) an object of type T; no initialization is done for the void() case). [Note:...

1301. Value initialization of union

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

1. Change 8.5 [dcl.init] paragraph 7 as follows:

To value-initialize an object of type T means:

• if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) class type (Clause 9 [class]) with either no default constructor (12.1 [class.ctor]) or a default constructor that is user-provided or deleted constructor (12.1 [class.ctor]), then the object is default-initialized default constructor for T is called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T has no accessible default constructor);

• if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) non-union class type without a user-provided or deleted default constructor, then the object is zero-initialized and, if T's implicitly-declared default constructor is T has a non-trivial default constructor, that constructor is called. default-initialized;

• ...

2. Change 8.5.4 [dcl.init.list] paragraph 3 as follows:

List-initialization of an object or reference of type T is defined as follows:

• If the initializer list has no elements and T is a class type with a default constructor, the object is value-initialized.

• Otherwise, if If T is an aggregate, aggregate initialization is performed (8.5.1 [dcl.init.aggr]). [Example:...

• Otherwise, if the initializer list has no elements and T is a class type with a default constructor, the object is value-initialized.

• ...

This resolution also resolves issues 1324 and 1368.

1324. Value initialization and defaulted constructors

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 1301.

1368. Value initialization and defaulted constructors (part 2)

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 1301.

1295. Binding a reference to an rvalue bit-field

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change the indicated sub-bullet of 8.5.3 [dcl.init.ref] paragraph 5 as follows:

• is an xvalue (but is not a bit-field), class prvalue, array prvalue or function lvalue and “cv1 T1” is reference-compatible with “cv2 T2”, or

1288. Reference list initialization

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 8.5.4 [dcl.init.list] paragraph 3 as follows:

• ...

• Otherwise, if T is a class type, constructors are considered...

• Otherwise, if T is a reference type, a prvalue temporary of the type referenced by T is list-initialized, and the reference is bound to that temporary. [Note: As usual, the binding will fail and the program is ill-formed if the reference type is an lvalue reference to a non-const type. —end note] [Example: ... —end example]

• Otherwise, if the initializer list has a single element of type E and either T is not a reference type or its referenced type is reference-related to E, the object or reference is initialized from that element; if a narrowing conversion (see below) is required to convert the element to T, the program is ill-formed. [Example:...

• Otherwise, if T is a reference type, a prvalue temporary of the type referenced by T is list-initialized, and the reference is bound to that temporary. [Note: As usual, the binding will fail and the program is ill-formed if the reference type is an lvalue reference to a non-const type. —end note] [Example: ... —end example]

• Otherwise, if the initializer list has no elements...

• ...

1308. Completeness of class type within an exception-specification

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

1. Change 9.2 [class.mem] paragraph 2 as follows:

A class is considered a completely-defined object type (3.9 [basic.types]) (or complete type) at the closing } of the class-specifier. Within the class member-specification, the class is regarded as complete within function bodies, default arguments, exception-specifications, and brace-or-equal-initializers for non-static data members (including such things in nested classes). Otherwise it is regarded as incomplete within its own class member-specification.

2. Change 15.4 [except.spec] paragraph 2 as follows:

...A type denoted in an exception-specification shall not denote an incomplete type other than a class currently being defined. A type denoted in an exception-specification shall not denote a pointer or reference to an incomplete type, other than cv void*, const void*, volatile void*, or const volatile void* or a pointer or reference to a class currently being defined. A type cv T, “array of T”, or “function returning T” denoted in an exception-specification is adjusted to type T, “pointer to T”, or “pointer to function returning T”, respectively.

1327. virt-specifier in a defaulted definition

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

1. Change 8.4.2 [dcl.fct.def.default] paragraph 1 as follows:

A function definition of the form:

attribute-specifier-seq_opt decl-specifier-seq_opt declarator virt-specifier-seq_opt = default ;

is called an explicitly-defaulted definition...

2. Change 8.4.3 [dcl.fct.def.delete] paragraph 1 as follows:

A function definition of the form:

attribute-specifier-seq_opt decl-specifier-seq_opt declarator virt-specifier-seq_opt = delete ;

is called a deleted definition...

1357. brace-or-equal-initializers for function and typedef members

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

The grammar allows a brace-or-equal-initializer for any class member with a member-declarator, including typedef members and member function declarations, and there is no semantic restriction forbidding those forms, either.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

In 9.2 [class.mem], delete pargraph 4 and change paragraph 5 as follows:

A member can be initialized using a constructor; see 12.1 [class.ctor]. [Note: See Clause 12 [special] for a description of constructors and other special member functions. —end note]

A member can be initialized using a brace-or-equal-initializer shall appear only in the declaration of a data member. (For static data members, see 9.4.2 [class.static.data]; for non-static data members, see 12.6.2 [class.base.init]).

1306. Modifying an object within a const member function

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

According to 9.3.2 [class.this] paragraph 2,

In a const member function, the object for which the function is called is accessed through a const access path; therefore, a const member function shall not modify the object and its non-static data members.

This is clearly overstating the case: mutable members can be modified, a const_cast can be used, and class member access expressions not involving this can also allow the object to be modified. The effect of the cv-qualification of a member function on the type of *this is clear from the preceding paragraph; this statement appears both unnecessary and incorrect.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Merge 9.3.2 [class.this] paragraphs 1 and 2 and change the text as follows:

In the body of a non-static (9.3 [class.mfct]) member function, the keyword this is a prvalue expression whose value is the address of the object for which the function is called. The type of this in a member function of a class X is X*. If the member function is declared const, the type of this is const X*, if the member function is declared volatile, the type of this is volatile X*, and if the member function is declared const volatile, the type of this is const volatile X*. In [Note: thus in a const member function, the object for which the function is called is accessed through a const access path; therefore, a const member function shall not modify the object and its non-static data members. —end note] [Example:...

1250. Cv-qualification of incomplete virtual function return types

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

According to 10.3 [class.virtual] paragraph 8,

If the return type of D::f differs from the return type of B::f, the class type in the return type of D::f shall be complete at the point of declaration of D::f or shall be the class type D.

This provision was intended to deal with covariant return types but inadvertently affects types that vary only in cv-qualification:

    struct A;
    struct B {
        virtual const A* f();
    };
    struct D : B {
        A* f();    // ill-formed
    };

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 10.3 [class.virtual] paragraph 8 as follows:

If the class type in the covariant return type of D::f differs from the return type that of B::f, the class type in the return type of D::f shall be complete at the point of declaration of D::f or shall be the class type D. When the overriding function...

462. Lifetime of temporaries bound to comma expressions

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Split off from issue 86.

Should binding a reference to the result of a "," operation whose second operand is a temporary extend the lifetime of the temporary?

  const SFileName &C = ( f(), SFileName("abc") );

Notes from the March 2004 meeting:

We think the temporary should be extended.

Proposed resolution (October, 2004):

Change 12.2 [class.temporary] paragraph 2 as indicated:

... In all these cases, the temporaries created during the evaluation of the expression initializing the reference, except the temporary that is the overall result of the expression [Footnote: For example, if the expression is a comma expression (5.18 [expr.comma]) and the value of its second operand is a temporary, the reference is bound to that temporary.] and to which the reference is bound, are destroyed at the end of the full-expression in which they are created and in the reverse order of the completion of their construction...

[Note: this wording partially resolves issue 86. See also issue 446.]

Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:

The CWG suggested a different approach from the 10/2004 resolution, leaving 12.2 [class.temporary] unchanged and adding normative wording to 5.18 [expr.comma] specifying that, if the result of the second operand is a temporary, that temporary is the result of the comma expression as well.

Proposed Resolution (November, 2006):

Add the indicated wording to 5.18 [expr.comma] paragraph 1:

... The type and value of the result are the type and value of the right operand; the result is of the same value category as its right operand, and is a bit-field if its right operand is a glvalue and a bit-field. If the value of the right operand is a temporary (12.2 [class.temporary]), the result is that temporary.

1336. Definition of “converting constructor”

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

1. Change the example in 12.3.1 [class.conv.ctor] paragraph 1 as follows:

  struct X {
      X(int);
      X(const char*, int =0);
      X(int, int);
  };

  void f(X arg) {
    X a = 1;          // a = X(1)
    X b = "Jessie";   // b = X("Jessie",0)
    a = 2;            // a = X(2)
    f(3);             // f(X(3))
    f({1, 2});        // f(X(1,2))
  }

2. Change the example in 12.3.1 [class.conv.ctor] paragraph 2 as follows:

  struct Z {
    explicit Z();
    explicit Z(int);
    explicit Z(int, int);
  };

  Z a;                       // OK: default-initialization performed
  Z a1 = 1;                  // error: no implicit conversion
  Z a3 = Z(1);               // OK: direct initialization syntax used
  Z a2(1);                   // OK: direct initialization syntax used
  Z* p = new Z(1);           // OK: direct initialization syntax used
  Z a4 = (Z)1;               // OK: explicit cast used
  Z a5 = static_cast<Z>(1);  // OK: explicit cast used
  Z a6 = { 3, 4 };           // error: no implicit conversion

1345. Initialization of anonymous union class members

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

12.6.2 [class.base.init] paragraph 8 appears to indicate that a class member that is an anonymous union is to be default initilized.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change the indicated bullet of 12.6.2 [class.base.init] paragraph 8 as follows:

• otherwise, if the entity is an anonymous union or a variant member (9.5 [class.union]), no initialization is performed;

535. Copy construction without a copy constructor

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Footnote 112 (12.8 [class.copy] paragraph 2) says,

Because a template constructor is never a copy constructor, the presence of such a template does not suppress the implicit declaration of a copy constructor. Template constructors participate in overload resolution with other constructors, including copy constructors, and a template constructor may be used to copy an object if it provides a better match than other constructors.

However, many of the stipulations about copy construction are phrased to refer only to “copy constructors.” For example, 12.8 [class.copy] paragraph 14 says,

A program is ill-formed if the copy constructor... for an object is implicitly used and the special member function is not accessible (clause 11 [class.access]).

Does that mean that using an inaccessible template constructor to copy an object is permissible, because it is not a “copy constructor?” Obviously not, but each use of the term “copy constructor” in the Standard should be examined to determine if it applies strictly to copy constructors or to any constructor used for copying. (A similar issue applies to “copy assignment operators,” which have the same relationship to assignment operator function templates.)

Proposed Resolution (August, 2011):

1. Change 3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 2 as follows:

...[Note: This covers calls to named functions (5.2.2 [expr.call]), operator overloading (Clause 13 [over]), user-defined conversions (12.3.2 [class.conv.fct]), allocation function for placement new (5.3.4 [expr.new]), as well as non-default initialization (8.5 [dcl.init]). A copy constructor or move constructor selected to copy or move an object of class type is odr-used even if the call is actually elided by the implementation (12.8 [class.copy]). —end note] ... A copy-assignment function for a class An assignment operator function in a class is odr-used by an implicitly-defined copy-assignment or move-assignment function for another class as specified in 12.8 [class.copy]. A move-assignment function for a class is odr-used by an implicitly-defined move-assignment function for another class as specified in 12.8 [class.copy]. A default constructor...

2. Delete 12.1 [class.ctor] paragraph 9:

A copy constructor (12.8 [class.copy]) is used to copy objects of class type. A move constructor (12.8 [class.copy]) is used to move the contents of objects of class type.

3. Change 12.2 [class.temporary] paragraph 1 as follows:

...[Note: even if there is no call to the destructor or copy/move constructor, all the semantic restrictions, such as accessibility (Clause 11 [class.access]) and whether the function is deleted (8.4.3 [dcl.fct.def.delete]), shall be satisfied. this includes accessibility (11 [class.access]) and whether it is deleted, for the constructor selected and for the destructor. However, in the special case of a function call...

4. Change 12.8 [class.copy] paragraph 13 as follows:

A copy/move constructor that is defaulted and not defined as deleted is implicitly defined if it is odr-used (3.2 [basic.def.odr]) to initialize an object of its class type from a copy of an object of its class type or of a class type derived from its class type [Footnote: See 8.5 [dcl.init] for more details on direct and copy initialization. —end footnote] or when it is explicitly defaulted...

5. Change 12.8 [class.copy] paragraph 31 as follows:

When certain criteria are met, an implementation is allowed to omit the copy/move construction of a class object, even if the copy/move constructor selected for the copy/move operation and/or the destructor for the object have side effects...

6. Change 13.3.3.1.2 [over.ics.user] paragraph 4 as follows:

A conversion of an expression of class type to the same class type is given Exact Match rank, and a conversion of an expression of class type to a base class of that type is given Conversion rank, in spite of the fact that a copy/move constructor (i.e., a user-defined conversion function) is called for those cases.

7. Change 15.1 [except.throw] paragraph 3 as follows:

A throw-expression copy-initializes (8.5 [dcl.init]) a temporary object, called the exception object...

8. Change 15.1 [except.throw] paragraph 5 as follows:

When the thrown object is a class object, the copy/move constructor selected for the copy-initialization and the destructor shall be accessible, even if the copy/move operation is elided (12.8 [class.copy]).

[Drafting note: 5.17 [expr.ass] paragraph 4, 9 [class] paragraph 4, 9.5 [class.union] paragraph 1, 12.2 [class.temporary] paragraph 2, 12.8 [class.copy] paragraphs 1-2, and 15.4 [except.spec] paragraph 14 do not require any changes.]

1350. Incorrect exception specification for inherited constructors

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

According to 12.9 [class.inhctor] paragraph 3, the exception specification for an inheriting constructor has the same exception specification as the inherited constructor. This ignores the exception specifications of default constructors for base classes and nonstatic data members and of functions called in brace-or-equals-initializers of nonstatic data members.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

1. Delete the indicated bullet of 12.9 [class.inhctor] paragraph 2:

• the exception-specification (15.4 [except.spec]),

2. Change 12.9 [class.inhctor] paragraph 3 as follows:

...[Note: Default arguments are not inherited. An exception-specification is implied as specified in 15.4 [except.spec]. —end note]

3. Change 15.4 [except.spec] paragraph 14 as follows:

An inheriting constructor (12.9 [class.inhctor]) and an implicitly declared special member function (Clause 12 [special]) shall have an exception-specification. If f is an inheriting constructor or an implicitly declared default constructor, copy constructor, move constructor, destructor, copy assignment operator, or move assignment operator, its implicit exception-specification specifies the type-id T if and only if T is allowed by the exception-specification of a function directly invoked by f's implicit definition; f shall allow all exceptions if any function it directly invokes allows all exceptions, and f shall allow no exceptions if every function it directly invokes allows no exceptions. [Note: an instantiation of an inheriting constructor template has an implied exception-specification as if it were a non-template inheriting constructor. —end note] [Example:...

1298. Incorrect example in overload resolution

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change the example in 13.3.3.2 [over.ics.rank] paragraph 3 bullet 1 sub-bullet 5 as follows:

  template<class T> int f(T&);
  template<class T> int f(T&&);
  int f(void(&)());     // #1
  int f(void(&&)());    // #2
  void g();
  int i1 = f(g);        // calls f(T&) #1

1275. Incorrect comment in example of template parameter pack restriction

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 14.1 [temp.param] paragraph 11 as follows:

...A template parameter pack of a function template shall not be followed by another template parameter unless that template parameter can be deduced from the parameter-type-list of the function template or has a default argument (14.8.2 [temp.deduct]). [Example:

  template<class T1 = int, class T2> class B;   // error

  // U cannot be deduced from the parameter-type-list or specified
  template<class... T, class... U> void f() { } // error
  template<class... T, class U> void g() { }    // error

—end example]

1296. Ill-formed template declarations (not just definitions)

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 14.6 [temp.res] paragraph 8 as follows:

Knowing which names are type names allows the syntax of every template definition to be checked. No diagnostic shall be issued for a template definition for which a valid specialization can be generated. If no valid specialization can be generated for a template definition, and that template is not instantiated, the template definition is ill-formed, no diagnostic required. If every valid specialization of a variadic template requires an empty template parameter pack, the template definition is ill-formed, no diagnostic required. If a type used...

1262. Default template arguments and deduction failure

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 14.8.2 [temp.deduct] paragraph 5 as follows:

The resulting substituted and adjusted function type is used as the type of the function template for template argument deduction. If a template argument has not been deduced, its default template argument, if any, is used and its corresponding template parameter has a default argument, the template argument is determined by substituting the template arguments determined for preceding template parameters into the default argument. If the substitution results in an invalid type, as described above, type deduction fails. [Example:...

1329. Recursive deduction substitutions

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change B [implimits] as follows:

• Recursively nested template instantiations, including substitution during template argument deduction (14.8.2 [temp.deduct]) [1 024].

388. Catching base*& from a throw of derived*

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

I have a question about exception handling with respect to derived to base conversions of pointers caught by reference.

What should the result of this program be?

  struct S             {};
  struct SS : public S {};

  int main()
  {
  	SS ss;
  	int result = 0;
  	try
  	{
  		throw &ss; // throw object has type SS*
  		           // (pointer to derived class)
  	}
  	catch (S*& rs) // (reference to pointer to base class)
  	{
  		result = 1;
  	}
  	catch (...)
  	{
  		result = 2;
  	}
  	return result;
  }

The wording of 15.3 [except.handle] paragraph 3 would seem to say that the catch of S*& does not match and so the catch ... would be taken.

All of the compilers I tried (EDG, g++, Sun, and Microsoft) used the catch of S*& though.

What do we think is the desired behavior for such cases?

My initial reaction is that this is a bug in all of these compilers, but the fact that they all do the same thing gives me pause.

On a related front, if the handler changes the parameter using the reference, what is caught by a subsequent handler?

  extern "C" int printf(const char *, ...);
  struct S             {};
  struct SS : public S {};
  SS ss;

  int f()
  {
  	try
  	{
  		throw &ss;
  	}
  	catch (S*& rs) // (reference to pointer to base class)
  	{
  		rs = 0;
  		throw;
  	}
  	catch (...)
  	{
  	}
  	return 0;
  }

  int main()
  {
  	try { f(); }
  	catch (S*& rs) {
  		printf("rs=%p, &ss=%p\n", rs, &ss);
  	}
  }

EDG, g++, and Sun all catch the original (unmodified) value. Microsoft catches the modified value. In some sense the EDG/g++/Sun behavior makes sense because the later catch could catch the derived class instead of the base class, which would be difficult to do if you let the catch clause update the value to be used by a subsequent catch.

But on this non-pointer case, all of the compilers later catch the modified value:

  extern "C" int printf(const char *, ...);
  int f()
  {
  	try
  	{
  		throw 1;
  	}
  	catch (int& i)
  	{
  		i = 0;
  		throw;
  	}
  	catch (...)
  	{
  	}
  	return 0;
  }

  int main()
  {
  	try { f(); }
  	catch (int& i) {
  		printf("i=%p\n", i);
  	}
  }

To summarize:

1. Should "base*const&" be able to catch a "derived*"? The current standard seems to say "no" but parallels to how calls work, and existing practice, suggest that the answer should be "yes".
2. Should "base*&" be able to catch a "derived*". Again, the standard seems seems to say "no". Parallels to how calls work still suggest "no", but existing practice suggests "yes".
3. If either of the above is "yes", what happens if you modify the pointer referred to by the reference. This requires a cast to remove const for case #2.
4. On a related front, if you catch "derived*&" when a "derived*" is thrown, what happens if you modify the pointer referred to by the reference? EDG/g++/Sun still don't modify the underlying value that would be caught by a rethrow in this case. This case seems like it should be the same as the "int&" example above, but is not on the three compilers mentioned.

(See also issue 729.)

Notes from the October, 2009 meeting:

The consensus of the CWG was that it should not be possible to catch a pointer to a derived class using a reference to a base class pointer, and that a handler that takes a reference to non-const pointer should allow the pointer to be modified by the handler.

Proposed resolution (March, 2010):

Change 15.3 [except.handle] paragraph 3 as follows:

A handler is a match for an exception object of type E if

• The handler is of type cv T or cv T& and E and T are the same type (ignoring the top-level cv-qualifiers), or

• the handler is of type cv T or cv T& and T is an unambiguous public base class of E, or

• the handler is of type cv1 T* cv2 or const T& where T is a pointer type and E is a pointer type that can be converted to the type of the handler T by either or both of

• a standard pointer conversion (4.10 [conv.ptr]) not involving conversions to pointers to private or protected or ambiguous classes

• a qualification conversion

• the handler is of type cv T or const T& where T is a pointer or pointer to member type and E is std::nullptr_t.

(This resolution also resolves issue 729.)

Notes from the March, 2011 meeting:

This resolution would require an ABI change and was thus deferred for further consideration.

729. Qualification conversions and handlers of reference-to-pointer type

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Given the following example:

    int f() {
        try { /* ... */ }
        catch(const int*&) {
            return 1;
        }
        catch(int*&) {
            return 2;
        }
        return 3;
    }

can f() return 2? That is, does an int* exception object match a const int*& handler?

According to 15.3 [except.handle] paragraph 3, it does not:

A handler is a match for an exception object of type E if

• The handler is of type cv T or cv T& and E and T are the same type (ignoring the top-level cv-qualifiers), or

• the handler is of type cv T or cv T& and T is an unambiguous public base class of E, or

• the handler is of type cv1 T* cv2 and E is a pointer type that can be converted to the type of the handler by either or both of

  • a standard pointer conversion (4.10 [conv.ptr]) not involving conversions to pointers to private or protected or ambiguous classes

  • a qualification conversion

• the handler is a pointer or pointer to member type and E is std::nullptr_t.

Only the third bullet allows qualification conversions, but only the first bullet applies to a handler of reference-to-pointer type. This is consistent with how other reference bindings work; for example, the following is ill-formed:

    int* p;
    const int*& r = p;

(The consistency is not complete; the reference binding would be permitted if r had type const int* const &, but a handler of that type would still not match an int* exception object.)

However, implementation practice seems to be in the other direction; both EDG and g++ do match an int* with a const int*&, and the Microsoft compiler issues an error for the presumed hidden handler in the code above. Should the Standard be changed to reflect existing practice?

(See also issue 388.)

Notes from the October, 2009 meeting:

The CWG agreed that matching the exception object with a handler should, to the extent possible, mimic ordinary reference binding in cases like this.

Proposed resolution (February, 2010):

This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 388.

1282. Underspecified destructor exception-specification

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Change 15.4 [except.spec] paragraph 14 as follows:

An implicitly declared special member function (Clause 12 [special]) shall have has an exception-specification. If f is an implicitly declared default constructor, copy constructor, move constructor, destructor, copy assignment operator, or move assignment operator, its implicit exception-specification specifies the type-id T if and only if T is allowed by the exception-specification of a function directly invoked by f's implicit definition; f shall allow allows all exceptions if any function it directly invokes allows all exceptions, and f shall allow no exceptions has the exception-specification noexcept(true) if every function it directly invokes allows no exceptions. [Example:

  struct A {
    A();
    A(const A&) throw();
    A(A&&) throw();
    ~A() throw(X);
  };
  struct B {
    B() throw();
    B(const B&) throw();
    B(B&&) throw(Y);
    ~B() throw(Y);
  };
  struct D : public A, public B {
      // Implicit declaration of D::D();
      // Implicit declaration of D::D(const D&) throw() noexcept(true);
      // Implicit declaration of D::D(D&&) throw(Y);
      // Implicit declaration of D::~D() throw(X, Y);
  };

Furthermore, if...

1251. C compatibility: casting to unqualified void*

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2012 meeting.]

The incompatibility described appears not to exist.

Proposed resolution (August, 2011):

Delete the second entry in C.1.3 [diff.conv], i.e., the one headed by

Change: Only pointers to non-const and non-volatile objects may be implicitly converted to void*

Issues with "WP" Status

Issues with "CD1" Status

663. Valid Cyrillic identifier characters

[Voted into the WP at the June, 2008 meeting.]

The C99 and C++ Standards disagree about the validity of two Cyrillic characters for use in identifiers. C++ (_N2691_.E [extendid]) says that 040d is valid in an identifier but that 040e is not; C99 (Annex D) says exactly the opposite. In fact, both characters should be accepted in identifiers; see the Unicode chart.

Proposed resolution (February, 2008):

The reference in paragraph 2 should be changed to ISO/IEC TR 10176:2003 and the table should be changed to conform to the one in that document (beginning on page 34).

357. Definition of signature should include name

[Voted into WP at April, 2007 meeting.]

Section 1.3 [intro.defs], definition of "signature" omits the function name as part of the signature. Since the name participates in overload resolution, shouldn't it be included in the definition? I didn't find a definition of signature in the ARM, but I might have missed it.

Fergus Henderson: I think so. In particular, 17.6.4.3.2 [global.names] reserves certain "function signatures" for use by the implementation, which would be wrong unless the signature includes the name.

-2- Each global function signature declared with external linkage in a header is reserved to the implementation to designate that function signature with external linkage.

-5- Each function signature from the Standard C library declared with external linkage is reserved to the implementation for use as a function signature with both extern "C" and extern "C++" linkage, or as a name of namespace scope in the global namespace.

Other uses of the term "function signature" in the description of the standard library also seem to assume that it includes the name.

James Widman:

Names don't participate in overload resolution; name lookup is separate from overload resolution. However, the word “signature” is not used in clause 13 [over]. It is used in linkage and declaration matching (e.g., 14.5.6.1 [temp.over.link]). This suggests that the name and scope of the function should be part of its signature.

Proposed resolution (October, 2006):

1. Replace 1.3 [intro.defs] “signature” with the following:

the name and the parameter-type-list (8.3.5 [dcl.fct]) of a function, as well as the class or namespace of which it is a member. If a function or function template is a class member its signature additionally includes the cv-qualifiers (if any) on the function or function template itself. The signature of a function template additionally includes its return type and its template parameter list. The signature of a function template specialization includes the signature of the template of which it is a specialization and its template arguments (whether explicitly specified or deduced). [Note: Signatures are used as a basis for name-mangling and linking. —end note]

2. Delete paragraph 3 and replace the first sentence of 14.5.6.1 [temp.over.link] as follows:

The signature of a function template specialization consists of the signature of the function template and of the actual template arguments (whether explicitly specified or deduced).

The signature of a function template consists of its function signature, its return type and its template parameter list is defined in 1.3 [intro.defs]. The names of the template parameters are significant...

(See also issue 537.)

537. Definition of “signature”

[Voted into WP at April, 2007 meeting.]

The standard defines “signature” in two places: 1.3 [intro.defs] and 14.5.6.1 [temp.over.link] paragraphs 3-4. The former seems to be meant as a formal definition (I think it's the only place covering the nontemplate case), yet it lacks some bits mentioned in the latter (specifically, the notion of a “signature of a function template,” which is part of every signature of the associated function template specializations).

Also, I think the 1.3 [intro.defs] words “the information about a function that participates in overload resolution” isn't quite right either. Perhaps, “the information about a function that distinguishes it in a set of overloaded functions?”

Eric Gufford:

In 1.3 [intro.defs] the definition states that “Function signatures do not include return type, because that does not participate in overload resolution,” while 14.5.6.1 [temp.over.link] paragraph 4 states “The signature of a function template consists of its function signature, its return type and its template parameter list.” This seems inconsistent and potentially confusing. It also seems to imply that two identical function templates with different return types are distinct signatures, which is in direct violation of 13.3 [over.match]. 14.5.6.1 [temp.over.link] paragraph 4 should be amended to include verbiage relating to overload resolution.

Either return types are included in function signatures, or they're not, across the board. IMHO, they should be included as they are an integral part of the function declaration/definition irrespective of overloads. Then verbiage should be added about overload resolution to distinguish between signatures and overload rules. This would help clarify things, as it is commonly understood that overload resolution is based on function signature.

In short, the term “function signature” should be made consistent, and removed from its (implicit, explicit or otherwise) linkage to overload resolution as it is commonly understood.

James Widman:

The problem is that (a) if you say the return type is part of the signature of a non-template function, then you have overloading but not overload resolution on return types (i.e., what we have now with function templates). I don't think anyone wants to make the language uglier in that way. And (b) if you say that the return type is not part of the signature of a function template, you will break code. Given those alternatives, it's probably best to maintain the status quo (which the implementors appear to have rendered faithfully).

Proposed resolution (September, 2006):

This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 357.

513. Non-class “most-derived” objects

[Voted into WP at April, 2006 meeting.]

The standard uses “most derived object” in some places (for example, 1.3 [intro.defs] “dynamic type,” 5.3.5 [expr.delete]) to refer to objects of both class and non-class type. However, 1.8 [intro.object] only formally defines it for objects of class type.

Possible fix: Change the wording in 1.8 [intro.object] paragraph 4 from

an object of a most derived class type is called a most derived object

to

an object of a most derived class type, or of non-class type, is called a most derived object

Proposed resolution (October, 2005):

Add the indicated words to 1.8 [intro.object] paragraph 4:

If a complete object, a data member (9.2 [class.mem]), or an array element is of class type, its type is considered the most derived class, to distinguish it from the class type of any base class subobject; an object of a most derived class type, or of a non-class type, is called a most derived object.

637. Sequencing rules and example disagree

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]

In 1.9 [intro.execution] paragraph 16, the following expression is still listed as an example of undefined behavior:

    i = ++i + 1;

However, it appears that the new sequencing rules make this expression well-defined:

1. The assignment side-effect is required to be sequenced after the value computations of both its LHS and RHS (5.17 [expr.ass] paragraph 1).

2. The LHS (i) is an lvalue, so its value computation involves computing the address of i.

3. In order to value-compute the RHS (++i + 1), it is necessary to first value-compute the lvalue expression ++i and then do an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion on the result. This guarantees that the incrementation side-effect is sequenced before the computation of the addition operation, which in turn is sequenced before the assignment side effect. In other words, it yields a well-defined order and final value for this expression.

It should be noted that a similar expression

    i = i++ + 1;

is still not well-defined, since the incrementation side-effect remains unsequenced with respect to the assignment side-effect.

It's unclear whether making the expression in the example well-defined was intentional or just a coincidental byproduct of the new sequencing rules. In either case either the example should be fixed, or the rules should be changed.

Clark Nelson: In my opinion, the poster's argument is perfectly correct. The rules adopted reflect the CWG's desired outcome for issue 222. At the Portland meeting, I presented (and still sympathize with) Tom Plum's case that these rules go a little too far in nailing down required behavior; this is a consequence of that.

One way or another, a change needs to be made, and I think we should seriously consider weakening the resolution of issue 222 to keep this example as having undefined behavior. This could be done fairly simply by having the sequencing requirements for an assignment expression depend on whether it appears in an lvalue context.

James Widman: How's this for a possible re-wording?

In all cases, the side effect of the assignment expression is sequenced after the value computations of the right and left operands. Furthermore, if the assignment expression appears in a context where an lvalue is required, the side effect of the assignment expression is sequenced before its value computation.

Notes from the February, 2008 meeting:

There was no real support in the CWG for weakening the resolution of issue 222 and returning the example to having undefined behavior. No one knew of an implementation that doesn't already do the (newly) right thing for such an example, so there was little motivation to go out of our way to increase the domain of undefined behavior. So the proposed resolution is to change the example to one that definitely does have undependable behavior in existing practice, and undefined behavior under the new rules.

Also, the new formulation of the sequencing rules approved in Oxford contained the wording that by and large resolved issue 222, so with the resolution of this issue, we can also close issue 222.

Proposed resolution (March, 2008):

Change the example in 1.9 [intro.execution] paragraph 16 as follows:

    i = v[i++];             // the behavior is undefined
    i = 7, i++, i++;        // i becomes 9
    i = ++i i++ + 1;        // the behavior is undefined
    i = i + 1;              // the value of i is incremented

639. What makes side effects “different” from one another?

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]

Is the behavior undefined in the following example?

    void f() {
         int n = 0;
         n = --n;
    }

1.9 [intro.execution] paragraph 16 says,

If a side effect on a scalar object is unsequenced relative to either a different side effect on the same scalar object or a value computation using the value of the same scalar object, the behavior is undefined.

It's not clear to me whether the two side-effects in n=--n are “different.” As far as I can tell, it seems that both side-effects involve the assignment of -1 to n, which in a sense makes them non-“different.” But I don't know if that's the intent. Would it be better to say “another” instead of “a different?”

On a related note, can we include this example to illustrate?

    void f( int, int );
    void g( int a ) { f( a = -1, a = -1 ); } // Undefined?

Proposed resolution (March, 2008):

Change 1.9 [intro.execution] paragraph 16 as follows:

...If a side effect on a scalar object is unsequenced relative to either a different another side effect on the same scalar object or a value computation using the value of the same scalar object, the behavior is undefined. [Example:

    void f(int, int);
    void g(int i, int* v) {
        i = v[i++];         // the behavior is undefined
        i = 7, i++, i++;    // i becomes 9

        i = ++i + 1;        // the behavior is undefined
        i = i + 1;          // the value of i is incremented

        f(i = -1, i = -1);  // the behavior is undefined
    }

—end example] When calling...

362. Order of initialization in instantiation units

[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]

Should this program do what its author obviously expects? As far as I can tell, the standard says that the point of instantiation for Fib<n-1>::Value is the same as the point of instantiation as the enclosing specialization, i.e., Fib<n>::Value. What in the standard actually says that these things get initialized in the right order?

  template<int n>
  struct Fib { static int Value; };

  template <>
  int Fib<0>::Value = 0;

  template <>
  int Fib<1>::Value = 1;

  template<int n>
  int Fib<n>::Value = Fib<n-1>::Value + Fib<n-2>::Value;

  int f ()
  {
    return Fib<40>::Value;
  }

John Spicer: My opinion is that the standard does not specify the behavior of this program. I thought there was a core issue related to this, but I could not find it. The issue that I recall proposed tightening up the static initialization rules to make more cases well defined.

Your comment about point of instantiation is correct, but I don't think that really matters. What matters is the order of execution of the initialization code at execution time. Instantiations don't really live in "translation units" according to the standard. They live in "instantiation units", and the handling of instantiation units in initialization is unspecified (which should probably be another core issue). See 2.2 [lex.phases] paragraph 8.

Notes from October 2002 meeting:

We discussed this and agreed that we really do mean the the order is unspecified. John Spicer will propose wording on handling of instantiation units in initialization.

Proposed resolution (April 2003):

TC1 contains the following text in 3.6.2 [basic.start.init] paragraph 1:

Objects with static storage duration defined in namespace scope in the same translation unit and dynamically initialized shall be initialized in the order in which their definition appears in the translation unit.

This was revised by issue 270 to read:

Dynamic initialization of an object is either ordered or unordered. Explicit specializations and definitions of class template static data members have ordered initialization. Other class template static data member instances have unordered initialization. Other objects defined in namespace scope have ordered initialization. Objects defined within a single translation unit and with ordered initialization shall be initialized in the order of their definitions in the translation unit. The order of initialization is unspecified for objects with unordered initialization and for objects defined in different translation units.

This addresses this issue but while reviewing this issue some additional changes were suggested for the above wording:

Dynamic initialization of an object is either ordered or unordered. Definitions of explicitly specialized Explicit specializations and definitions of class template static data members have ordered initialization. Other class template static data members (i.e., implicitly or explicitly instantiated specializations) instances have unordered initialization. Other objects defined in namespace scope have ordered initialization. Objects defined within a single translation unit and with ordered initialization shall be initialized in the order of their definitions in the translation unit. The order of initialization is unspecified for objects with unordered initialization and for objects defined in different translation units.

558. Excluded characters in universal character names

[Moved to DR at October 2007 meeting.]

C99 and C++ differ in their approach to universal character names (UCNs).

Issue 248 already covers the differences in UCNs allowed for identifiers, but a more fundamental issue is that of UCNs that correspond to codes reserved by ISO 10676 for surrogate pair forms.

Specifically, C99 does not allow UCNs whose short names are in the range 0xD800 to 0xDFFF. I think C++ should have the same constraint. If someone really wants to place such a code in a character or string literal, they should use a hexadecimal escape sequence instead, for example:

    wchar_t  w1 = L'\xD900'; // Okay.
    wchar_t  w2 = L'\uD900'; // Error, not a valid character.

(Compare 6.4.3 paragraph 2 in ISO/IEC 9899/1999 with 2.3 [lex.charset] paragraph 2 in the C++ standard.)

Proposed resolution (October, 2007):

This issue is resolved by the adoption of paper J16/07-0030 = WG21 N2170.

505. Conditionally-supported behavior for unknown character escapes

[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]

The current wording of 2.14.3 [lex.ccon] paragraph 3 states,

If the character following a backslash is not one of those specified, the behavior is undefined.

Paper J16/04-0167=WG21 N1727 suggests that such character escapes be ill-formed. In discussions at the Lillehammer meeting, however, the CWG felt that the newly-approved category of conditionally-supported behavior would be more appropriate.

Proposed resolution (April, 2006):

Change the next-to-last sentence of 2.14.3 [lex.ccon] paragraph 3 from:

If the character following a backslash is not one of those specified, the behavior is undefined.

to:

Escape sequences in which the character following the backslash is not listed in Table 6 are conditionally-supported, with implementation-defined semantics.

309. Linkage of entities whose names are not simply identifiers, in introduction

[Voted into the WP at the June, 2008 meeting.]

3 [basic] paragraph 8, while not incorrect, does not allow for linkage of operators and conversion functions. It says:

An identifier used in more than one translation unit can potentially refer to the same entity in these translation units depending on the linkage (3.5 [basic.link]) of the identifier specified in each translation unit.

Proposed Resolution (November, 2006):

This issue is resolved by the proposed resolution of issue 485.

485. What is a “name”?

[Voted into the WP at the June, 2008 meeting.]

Clause 3 [basic] paragraph 4 says:

A name is a use of an identifier (2.11 [lex.name]) that denotes an entity or label (6.6.4 [stmt.goto], 6.1 [stmt.label]).

Just three paragraphs later, it says

Two names are the same if

• they are identifiers composed of the same character sequence; or
• they are the names of overloaded operator functions formed with the same operator; or
• they are the names of user-defined conversion functions formed with the same type.

The last two bullets contradict the definition of name in paragraph 4 because they are not identifiers.

This definition affects other parts of the Standard, as well. For example, in 3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep] paragraph 1,

When an unqualified name is used as the postfix-expression in a function call (5.2.2 [expr.call]), other namespaces not considered during the usual unqualified lookup (3.4.1 [basic.lookup.unqual]) may be searched, and in those namespaces, namespace-scope friend function declarations (11.3 [class.friend]) not otherwise visible may be found.

With the current definition of name, argument-dependent lookup apparently does not apply to function-notation calls to overloaded operators.

Another related question is whether a template-id is a name or not and thus would trigger an argument-dependent lookup. Personally, I have always viewed a template-id as a name, just like operator+.

Proposed Resolution (November, 2006):

1. Change clause 3 [basic] paragraphs 3-8 as follows:

   3. An entity is a value, object, subobject, base class subobject, array element, variable, reference, function, instance of a function, enumerator, type, class member, template, template specialization, namespace, or parameter pack.

   4. A name is a use of an identifier identifier (2.11 [lex.name]), operator-function-id (13.5 [over.oper]), conversion-function-id (12.3.2 [class.conv.fct]), or template-id (14.2 [temp.names]) that denotes an entity or label (6.6.4 [stmt.goto], 6.1 [stmt.label]). A variable is introduced by the declaration of an object. The variable’s name denotes the object.

   5. Every name that denotes an entity is introduced by a declaration. Every name that denotes a label is introduced either by a goto statement (6.6.4 [stmt.goto]) or a labeled-statement (6.1 [stmt.label]).

   1. A variable is introduced by the declaration of an object. The variable's name denotes the object.

   6. Some names denote types, classes, enumerations, or templates. In general, it is necessary to determine whether or not a name denotes one of these entities before parsing the program that contains it. The process that determines this is called name lookup (3.4 [basic.lookup]).

   7. Two names are the same if

      • they are identifiers identifiers composed of the same character sequence; or

      • they are the names of overloaded operator functions operator-function-ids formed with the same operator; or

      • they are the names of user-defined conversion functions conversion-function-ids formed with the same type., or

      • they are template-ids that refer to the same class or function (14.4 [temp.type]).

   8. An identifier A name used in more than one translation unit can potentially refer to the same entity in these translation units depending on the linkage (3.5 [basic.link]) of the identifier name specified in each translation unit.

2. Change 3.3.7 [basic.scope.class] paragraph 1 item 5 as follows:

   The potential scope of a declaration that extends to or past the end of a class definition also extends to the regions defined by its member definitions, even if the members are defined lexically outside the class (this includes static data member definitions, nested class definitions, member function definitions (including the member function body and any portion of the declarator part of such definitions which follows the identifier declarator-id, including a parameter-declaration-clause and any default arguments (8.3.6 [dcl.fct.default]).

   [Drafting note: This last change is not really mandated by the issue, but it's another case of “identifier” confusion.]

(This proposed resolution also resolves issue 309.)

261. When is a deallocation function "used?"

[Moved to DR at October 2002 meeting.]

3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 2 says that a deallocation function is "used" by a new-expression or delete-expression appearing in a potentially-evaluated expression. 3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 3 requires only that "used" functions be defined.

This wording runs afoul of the typical implementation technique for polymorphic delete-expressions in which the deallocation function is invoked from the virtual destructor of the most-derived class. The problem is that the destructor must be defined, because it's virtual, and if it contains an implicit reference to the deallocation function, the deallocation function must also be defined, even if there are no relevant new-expressions or delete-expressions in the program.

For example:

        struct B { virtual ~B() { } };

        struct D: B {
            void operator delete(void*);
            ~D() { }
        };

Is it required that D::operator delete(void*) be defined, even if no B or D objects are ever created or deleted?

Suggested resolution: Add the words "or if it is found by the lookup at the point of definition of a virtual destructor (12.4 [class.dtor])" to the specification in 3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 2.

Notes from 04/01 meeting:

The consensus was in favor of requiring that any declared non-placement operator delete member function be defined if the destructor for the class is defined (whether virtual or not), and similarly for a non-placement operator new if a constructor is defined.

Proposed resolution (10/01):

In 3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 2, add the indicated text:

An allocation or deallocation function for a class is used by a new expression appearing in a potentially-evaluated expression as specified in 5.3.4 [expr.new] and 12.5 [class.free]. A deallocation function for a class is used by a delete expression appearing in a potentially-evaluated expression as specified in 5.3.5 [expr.delete] and 12.5 [class.free]. A non-placement allocation or deallocation function for a class is used by the definition of a constructor of that class. A non-placement deallocation function for a class is used by the definition of the destructor of that class, or by being selected by the lookup at the point of definition of a virtual destructor (12.4 [class.dtor]). [Footnote: An implementation is not required to call allocation and deallocation functions from constructors or destructors; however, this is a permissible implementation technique.]

289. Incomplete list of contexts requiring a complete type

[Moved to DR at October 2002 meeting.]

3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 4 has a note listing the contexts that require a class type to be complete. It does not list use as a base class as being one of those contexts.

Proposed resolution (10/01):

In 3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 4 add a new bullet at the end of the note as the next-to-last bullet:

• a class with a base class of type T is defined (10 [class.derived]), or

433. Do elaborated type specifiers in templates inject into enclosing namespace scope?

[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]

Consider the following translation unit:

  template<class T> struct S {
    void f(union U*);  // (1)
  };
  template<class T> void S<T>::f(union U*) {}  // (2)
  U *p;  // (3)

Does (1) introduce U as a visible name in the surrounding namespace scope?

If not, then (2) could presumably be an error since the "union U" in that definition does not find the same type as the declaration (1).

If yes, then (3) is OK too. However, we have gone through much trouble to allow template implementations that do not pre-parse the template definitions, but requiring (1) to be visible would change that.

A slightly different case is the following:

  template<typename> void f() { union U *p; }
  U *q;  // Should this be valid?

Notes from October 2003 meeting:

There was consensus that example 1 should be allowed. (Compilers already parse declarations in templates; even MSVC++ 6.0 accepts this case.) The vote was 7-2.

Example 2, on the other hand, is wrong; the union name goes into a block scope anyway.

Proposed resolution:

In 3.3.2 [basic.scope.pdecl] change the second bullet of paragraph 5 as follows:

for an elaborated-type-specifier of the form

   class-key identifier

if the elaborated-type-specifier is used in the decl-specifier-seq or parameter-declaration-clause of a function defined in namespace scope, the identifier is declared as a class-name in the namespace that contains the declaration; otherwise, except as a friend declaration, the identifier is declared in the smallest non-class, non-function-prototype scope that contains the declaration. [Note: These rules also apply within templates.] [Note: ...]

432. Is injected class name visible in base class specifier list?

[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]

Consider the following example (inspired by a question from comp.lang.c++.moderated):

  template<typename> struct B {};
  template<typename T> struct D: B<D> {};

Most (all?) compilers reject this code because D is handled as a template name rather than as the injected class name.

9 [class]/2 says that the injected class name is "inserted into the scope of the class."

3.3.7 [basic.scope.class]/1 seems to be the text intended to describe what "scope of a class" means, but it assumes that every name in that scope was introduced using a "declarator". For an implicit declaration such as the injected-class name it is not clear what that means.

So my questions:

1. Should the injected class name be available in the base class specifiers?

   John Spicer: I do not believe the injected class name should be available in the base specifier. I think the semantics of injected class names should be as if a magic declaration were inserted after the opening "{" of the class definition. The injected class name is a member of the class and members don't exist at the point where the base specifiers are scanned.

2. Do you agree the wording should be clarified whatever the answer to the first question?

   John Spicer: I believe the 3.3.7 [basic.scope.class] wording should be updated to reflect the fact that not all names come from declarators.

Notes from October 2003 meeting:

We agree with John Spicer's suggested answers above.

Proposed Resolution (October 2003):

The answer to question 1 above is No and no change is required.

For question 1, change 3.3.7 [basic.scope.class] paragraph 1 rule 1 to:

1) The potential scope of a name declared in a class consists not only of the declarative region following the name's point of declaration declarator, but also of all function bodies, default arguments, and constructor ctor-initializers in that class (including such things in nested classes). The point of declaration of an injected-class-name (clause 9 [class]) is immediately following the opening brace of the class definition.

(Note that this change overlaps a change in issue 417.)

Also change 3.3.2 [basic.scope.pdecl] by adding a new paragraph 8 for the injected-class-name case:

The point of declaration for an injected-class-name (clause 9 [class]) is immediately following the opening brace of the class definition.

Alternatively this paragraph could be added after paragraph 5 and before the two note paragraphs (i.e. it would become paragraph 5a).

139. Error in friend lookup example

[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]

The example in 3.4.1 [basic.lookup.unqual] paragraph 3 is incorrect:

    typedef int f;
    struct A {
        friend void f(A &);
        operator int();
        void g(A a) {
            f(a);
        }
    };

One possible repair of the example would be to make f a class with a constructor taking either A or int as its parameter.

(See also issues 95, 136, 138, 143, 165, and 166.)

Proposed resolution (04/01):

1. Change the example in 3.4.1 [basic.lookup.unqual] paragraph 3 to read:

       typedef int f;
       namespace N {
           struct A {
               friend int f(A &);
               operator int();
               void g(A a) {
                   int i = f(a);
                         // f is the typedef, not the friend function:
                         // equivalent to int(a)
               }
           };
       }
   

2. Delete the sentence immediately following the example:

   The expression f(a) is a cast-expression equivalent to int(a).

514. Is the initializer for a namespace member in the scope of the namespace?

[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]

Is the following code well-formed?

    namespace N {
      int i;
      extern int j;
    }
    int N::j = i;

The question here is whether the lookup for i in the initializer of N::j finds the declaration in namespace N or not. Implementations differ on this question.

If N::j were a static data member of a class, the answer would be clear: both 3.4.1 [basic.lookup.unqual] paragraph 12 and 8.5 [dcl.init] paragraph 11 say that the initializer “is in the scope of the member's class.” There is no such provision for namespace members defined outside the namespace, however.

The reasoning given in 3.4.1 [basic.lookup.unqual] may be instructive:

A name used in the definition of a static data member of class X (9.4.2 [class.static.data]) (after the qualified-id of the static member) is looked up as if the name was used in a member function of X.

It is certainly the case that a name used in a function that is a member of a namespace is looked up in that namespace (3.4.1 [basic.lookup.unqual] paragraph 6), regardless of whether the definition is inside or outside that namespace. Initializers for namespace members should probably be looked up the same way.

Proposed resolution (April, 2006):

Add a new paragraph following 3.4.1 [basic.lookup.unqual] paragraph 12:

If a variable member of a namespace is defined outside of the scope of its namespace then any name used in the definition of the variable member (after the declarator-id) is looked up as if the definition of the variable member occurred in its namespace. [Example:

    namespace N {
      int i = 4;
      extern int j;
    }

    int i = 2;

    int N::j = i;	// N::j == 4

—end example]

143. Friends and Koenig lookup

[Moved to DR at 4/02 meeting.]

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of 3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep] say, in part,

When an unqualified name is used as the postfix-expression in a function call (5.2.2 [expr.call] )... namespace-scope friend function declarations (11.3 [class.friend] ) not otherwise visible may be found... the set of declarations found by the lookup of the function name [includes] the set of declarations found in the... classes associated with the argument types.

Consider the following example:

    namespace A {
	class S;
    };
    namespace B {
	void f(A::S);
    };
    namespace A {
	class S {
	    int i;
	    friend void B::f(S);
	};
    }
    void g() {
	A::S s;
	f(s); // should find B::f(A::S)
    }

Another interpretation is that, instead of finding the friend declarations in associated classes, one only looks for namespace-scope functions, visible or invisible, in the namespaces of which the the associated classes are members; the only use of the friend declarations in the associated classes is to validate whether an invisible function declaration came from an associated class or not and thus whether it should be included in the overload set or not. By this interpretation, the call f(s) in the example will fail, because B::f(A::S) is not a member of namespace A and thus is not found by the lookup.

Notes from 10/99 meeting: The second interpretation is correct. The wording should be revised to make clear that Koenig lookup works by finding "invisible" declarations in namespace scope and not by finding friend declarations in associated classes.

Proposed resolution (04/01): The "associated classes" are handled adequately under this interpretation by 3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep] paragraph 3, which describes the lookup in the associated namespaces as including the friend declarations from the associated classes. Other mentions of the associated classes should be removed or qualified to avoid the impression that there is a lookup in those classes:

1. In 3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep], change

   When an unqualified name is used as the postfix-expression in a function call (5.2.2 [expr.call]), other namespaces not considered during the usual unqualified lookup (3.4.1 [basic.lookup.unqual]) may be searched, and namespace-scope friend function declarations (11.3 [class.friend]) not otherwise visible may be found.

   to

   When an unqualified name is used as the postfix-expression in a function call (5.2.2 [expr.call]), other namespaces not considered during the usual unqualified lookup (3.4.1 [basic.lookup.unqual]) may be searched, and in those namespaces, namespace-scope friend function declarations (11.3 [class.friend]) not otherwise visible may be found.

2. In 3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep] paragraph 2, delete the words and classes in the following two sentences:

   If the ordinary unqualified lookup of the name finds the declaration of a class member function, the associated namespaces and classes are not considered. Otherwise the set of declarations found by the lookup of the function name is the union of the set of declarations found using ordinary unqualified lookup and the set of declarations found in the namespaces and classes associated with the argument types.

(See also issues 95, 136, 138, 139, 165, 166, and 218.)

218. Specification of Koenig lookup

[Voted into WP at April, 2007 meeting.]

The original intent of the Committee when Koenig lookup was added to the language was apparently something like the following:

1. The name in the function call expression is looked up like any other unqualified name.
2. If the ordinary unqualified lookup finds nothing or finds the declaration of a (non-member) function, function template, or overload set, argument-dependent lookup is done and any functions found in associated namespaces are added to the result of the ordinary lookup.

This approach is not reflected in the current wording of the Standard. Instead, the following appears to be the status quo:

1. Lookup of an unqualified name used as the postfix-expression in the function call syntax always performs Koenig lookup (3.4.1 [basic.lookup.unqual] paragraph 3).
2. Unless ordinary lookup finds a class member function, the result of Koenig lookup always includes the declarations found in associated namespaces (3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep] paragraph 2), regardless of whether ordinary lookup finds a declaration and, if so, what kind of entity is found.
3. The declarations from associated namespaces are not limited to functions and template functions by anything in 3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep]. However, if Koenig lookup results in more than one declaration and at least one of the declarations is a non-function, the program is ill-formed (7.3.4 [namespace.udir], paragraph 4; although this restriction is in the description of the using-directive, the wording applies to any lookup that spans namespaces).

John Spicer: Argument-dependent lookup was created to solve the problem of looking up function names within templates where you don't know which namespace to use because it may depend on the template argument types (and was then expanded to permit use in nontemplates). The original intent only concerned functions. The safest and simplest change is to simply clarify the existing wording to that effect.

Bill Gibbons: I see no reason why non-function declarations should not be found. It would take a special rule to exclude "function objects", as well as pointers to functions, from consideration. There is no such rule in the standard and I see no need for one.

There is also a problem with the wording in 3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep] paragraph 2:

If the ordinary unqualified lookup of the name finds the declaration of a class member function, the associated namespaces and classes are not considered.

This implies that if the ordinary lookup of the name finds the declaration of a data member which is a pointer to function or function object, argument-dependent lookup is still done.

My guess is that this is a mistake based on the incorrect assumption that finding any member other than a member function would be an error. I would just change "class member function" to "class member" in the quoted sentence.

Mike Miller: In light of the issue of "short-circuiting" Koenig lookup when normal lookup finds a non-function, perhaps it should be written as "...finds the declaration of a class member, an object, or a reference, the associated namespaces..."?

Andy Koenig: I think I have to weigh in on the side of extending argument-dependent lookup to include function objects and pointers to functions. I am particularly concerned about [function objects], because I think that programmers should be able to replace functions by function objects without changing the behavior of their programs in fundamental ways.

Bjarne Stroustrup: I don't think we could seriously argue from first principles that [argument-dependent lookup should find only function declarations]. In general, C++ name lookup is designed to be independent of type: First we find the name(s), then, we consider its(their) meaning. 3.4 [basic.lookup] states "The name lookup rules apply uniformly to all names ..." That is an important principle.

Thus, I consider text that speaks of "function call" instead of plain "call" or "application of ()" in the context of koenig lookup an accident of history. I find it hard to understand how 5.2.2 [expr.call] doesn't either disallow all occurrences of x(y) where x is a class object (that's clearly not intended) or requires koenig lookup for x independently of its type (by reference from 3.4 [basic.lookup]). I suspect that a clarification of 5.2.2 [expr.call] to mention function objects is in order. If the left-hand operand of () is a name, it should be looked up using koenig lookup.

John Spicer: This approach causes otherwise well-formed programs to be ill-formed, and it does so by making names visible that might be completely unknown to the author of the program. Using-directives already do this, but argument-dependent lookup is different. You only get names from using-directives if you actually use using-directives. You get names from argument-dependent lookup whether you want them or not.

This basically breaks an important reason for having namespaces. You are not supposed to need any knowledge of the names used by a namespace.

But this example breaks if argument-dependent lookup finds non-functions and if the translation unit includes the <list> header somewhere.

    namespace my_ns {
        struct A {};
        void list(std::ostream&, A&);

        void f() {
            my_ns::A a;
            list(cout, a);
        }
    }

This really makes namespaces of questionable value if you still need to avoid using the same name as an entity in another namespace to avoid problems like this.

Erwin Unruh: Before we really decide on this topic, we should have more analysis on the impact on programs. I would also like to see a paper on the possibility to overload functions with function surrogates (no, I won't write one). Since such an extension is bound to wait until the next official update, we should not preclude any outcome of the discussion.

I would like to have a change right now, which leaves open several outcomes later. I would like to say that:

Koenig lookup will find non-functions as well. If it finds a variable, the program is ill-formed. If the primary lookup finds a variable, Koenig lookup is done. If the result contains both functions and variables, the program is ill-formed. [Note: A future standard will assign semantics to such a program.]

I myself are not comfortable with this as a long-time result, but it prepares the ground for any of the following long term solutions:

• Do overloading on mixed function/variable sets.
• Ignore variables on Koenig lookup.
• Don't do Koenig lookup if the primary lookup finds a variable.
• Find variables on Koenig lookup and give an error if there is a variable/function mix.

The note is there to prevent compiler vendors to put their own extensions in here.

(See also issues 113 and 143.)

Notes from 04/00 meeting:

Although many agreed that there were valid concerns motivating a desire for Koenig lookup to find non-function declarations, there was also concern that supporting this capability would be more dangerous than helpful in the absence of overload resolution for mixed function and non-function declarations.

A straw poll of the group revealed 8 in favor of Koenig lookup finding functions and function templates only, while 3 supported the broader result.

Notes from the 10/01 meeting:

There was unanimous agreement on one less controversial point: if the normal lookup of the identifier finds a non-function, argument-dependent lookup should not be done.

On the larger issue, the primary point of consensus is that making this change is an extension, and therefore it should wait until the point at which we are considering extensions (which could be very soon). There was also consensus on the fact that the standard as it stands is not clear: some introductory text suggests that argument-dependent lookup finds only functions, but the more detailed text that describes the lookup does not have any such restriction.

It was also noted that some existing implementations (e.g., g++) do find some non-functions in some cases.

The issue at this point is whether we should (1) make a small change to make the standard clear (presumably in the direction of not finding the non-functions in the lookup), and revisit the issue later as an extension, or (2) leave the standard alone for now and make any changes only as part of considering the extension. A straw vote favored option (1) by a strong majority.

Additional Notes (September, 2006):

Recent discussion of this issue has emphasized the following points:

1. The concept of finding function pointers and function objects as part of argument-dependent lookup is not currently under active discussion in the Evolution Working Group.

2. The major area of concern with argument-dependent lookup is finding functions in unintended namespaces. There are current proposals to deal with this concern either by changing the definition of “associated namespace” so that fewer namespaces are considered or to provide a mechanism for enabling or disabling ADL altogether. Although this concern is conceptually distinct from the question of whether ADL finds function pointers and function objects, it is related in the sense that the current rules are perceived as finding too many functions (because of searching too many namespaces), and allowing function pointers and function objects would also increase the number of entities found by ADL.

3. Any expansion of ADL to include function pointers and function objects must necessarily update the overloading rules to specify how they interact with functions and function templates in the overload set. Current implementation experience (g++) is not helpful in making this decision because, although it performs a uniform lookup and finds non-function entities, it diagnoses an error in overload resolution if non-function entities are in the overload set.

4. There is a possible problem if types are found by ADL: it is not clear that overloading between callable entities (functions, function templates, function pointers, and function objects) and types (where the postfix syntax means a cast or construction of a temporary) is reasonable or useful.

James Widman:

There is a larger debate here about whether ADL should find object names; the proposed wording below is only intended to answer the request for wording to clarify the status quo (option 1 above) and not to suggest the outcome of the larger debate.

Proposed Resolution (October, 2006):

1. Replace the normative text in 3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep] paragraph 3 with the following (leaving the text of the note and example unchanged):

   Let X be the lookup set produced by unqualified lookup (3.4.1 [basic.lookup.unqual]) and let Y be the lookup set produced by argument dependent lookup (defined as follows). If X contains

   • a declaration of a class member, or
   • a block-scope function declaration that is not a using-declaration, or
   • a declaration that is neither a function nor a function template

   then Y is empty. Otherwise Y is the set of declarations found in the namespaces associated with the argument types as described below. The set of declarations found by the lookup of the name is the union of X and Y.

2. Change 3.4.1 [basic.lookup.unqual] paragraph 4 as indicated:

   When considering an associated namespace, the lookup is the same as the lookup performed when the associated namespace is used as a qualifier (3.4.3.2 [namespace.qual]) except that:

   • Any using-directives in the associated namespace are ignored.
   • Any namespace-scope friend functions or friend function templates declared in associated classes are visible within their respective namespaces even if they are not visible during an ordinary lookup (11.3 [class.friend]).
   • All names except those of (possibly overloaded) functions and function templates are ignored.

403. Reference to a type as a template-id

[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]

Spun off from issue 384.

3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep] says:

If T is a template-id, its associated namespaces and classes are the namespace in which the template is defined; for member templates, the member template's class; the namespaces and classes associated with the types of the template arguments provided for template type parameters (excluding template template parameters); the namespaces in which any template template arguments are defined; and the classes in which any member templates used as template template arguments are defined. [Note: non-type template arguments do not contribute to the set of associated namespaces. ]

Proposed Resolution (October 2003):

In 3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep], paragraph 2, bullet 8, replace

If T is a template-id ...

If T is a class template specialization ...

557. Does argument-dependent lookup cause template instantiation?

[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]

One might assume from 14.7.1 [temp.inst] paragraph 1 that argument-dependent lookup would require instantiation of any class template specializations used in argument types:

Unless a class template specialization has been explicitly instantiated (14.7.2 [temp.explicit]) or explicitly specialized (14.7.3 [temp.expl.spec]), the class template specialization is implicitly instantiated when the specialization is referenced in a context that requires a completely-defined object type or when the completeness of the class type affects the semantics of the program.

A complete class type is required to determine the associated classes and namespaces for the argument type (to determine the class's bases) and to determine the friend functions declared by the class, so the completeness of the class type certainly “affects the semantics of the program.”

This conclusion is reinforced by the second bullet of 3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep] paragraph 2:

• If T is a class type (including unions), its associated classes are: the class itself; the class of which it is a member, if any; and its direct and indirect base classes. Its associated namespaces are the namespaces in which its associated classes are defined.

A class template specialization is a class type, so the second bullet would appear to apply, requiring the specialization to be instantiated in order to determine its base classes.

However, bullet 8 of that paragraph deals explicitly with class template specializations:

• If T is a class template specialization its associated namespaces and classes are the namespace in which the template is defined; for member templates, the member template’s class; the namespaces and classes associated with the types of the template arguments provided for template type parameters (excluding template template parameters); the namespaces in which any template template arguments are defined; and the classes in which any member templates used as template template arguments are defined.

Note that the class template specialization itself is not listed as an associated class, unlike other class types, and there is no mention of base classes. If bullet 8 were intended as a supplement to the treatment of class types in bullet 2, one would expect phrasing along the lines of, “In addition to the associated namespaces and classes for all class types...” or some such; instead, bullet 8 reads like a self-contained and complete specification.

If argument-dependent lookup does not cause implicit instantiation, however, examples like the following fail:

    template <typename T> class C {
        friend void f(C<T>*) { }
    };
    void g(C<int>* p) {
        f(p);    // found by ADL??
    }

Implementations differ in whether this example works or not.

Proposed resolution (April, 2006):

1. Change bullet 2 of 3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep] paragraph 2 as indicated:

   • If T is a class type (including unions), its associated classes are: the class itself; the class of which it is a member, if any; and its direct and indirect base classes. Its associated namespaces are the namespaces in of which its associated classes are defined members. Furthermore, if T is a class template specialization, its associated namespaces and classes also include: the namespaces and classes associated with the types of the template arguments provided for template type parameters (excluding template template parameters); the namespaces of which any template template arguments are members; and the classes of which any member templates used as template template arguments are members. [Note: Non-type template arguments do not contribute to the set of associated namespaces. —end note]

2. Delete bullet 8 of 3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep] paragraph 2:

   • If T is a class template specialization its associated namespaces and classes are the namespace in which the template is defined; for member templates, the member template’s class; the namespaces and classes associated with the types of the template arguments provided for template type parameters (excluding template template parameters); the namespaces in which any template template arguments are defined; and the classes in which any member templates used as template template arguments are defined. [Note: non-type template arguments do not contribute to the set of associated namespaces. —end note]

298. T::x when T is cv-qualified

[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]

Can a typedef T to a cv-qualified class type be used in a qualified name T::x?

    struct A { static int i; };
    typedef const A CA;
    int main () {
      CA::i = 0;  // Okay?
    }

Suggested answer: Yes. All the compilers I tried accept the test case.

Proposed resolution (10/01):

In 3.4.3.1 [class.qual] paragraph 1 add the indicated text:

If the nested-name-specifier of a qualified-id nominates a class, the name specified after the nested-name-specifier is looked up in the scope of the class (10.2 [class.member.lookup]), except for the cases listed below. The name shall represent one or more members of that class or of one of its base classes (clause 10 [class.derived]). If the class-or-namespace-name of the nested-name-specifier names a cv-qualified class type, it nominates the underlying class (the cv-qualifiers are ignored).

Notes from 4/02 meeting:

There is a problem in that class-or-namespace-name does not include typedef names for cv-qualified class types. See 7.1.3 [dcl.typedef] paragraph 4:

Argument and text removed from proposed resolution (October 2002):

7.1.3 [dcl.typedef] paragraph 5:

Here's a good question: in this example, should X be used as a name-for-linkage-purposes (FLP name)?

  typedef class { } const X;

Because a type-qualifier is parsed as a decl-specifier, it isn't possible to declare cv-qualified and cv-unqualified typedefs for a type in a single declaration. Also, of course, there's no way to declare a typedef for the cv-unqualified version of a type for which only a cv-qualified version has a name. So, in the above example, if X isn't used as the FLP name, then there can be no FLP name. Also note that a FLP name usually represents a parameter type, where top-level cv-qualifiers are usually irrelevant anyway.

Data points: for the above example, Microsoft uses X as the FLP name; GNU and EDG do not.

My recommendation: for consistency with the direction we're going on this issue, for simplicity of description (e.g., "the first class-name declared by the declaration"), and for (very slightly) increased utility, I think Microsoft has this right.

If the typedef declaration defines an unnamed class type (or enum type), the first typedef-name declared by the declaration to be have that class type (or enum type) or a cv-qualified version thereof is used to denote the class type (or enum type) for linkage purposes only (3.5 [basic.link]). [Example: ...

Proposed resolution (October 2002):

3.4.4 [basic.lookup.elab] paragraphs 2 and 3:

This sentence is deleted twice:

... If this name lookup finds a typedef-name, the elaborated-type-specifier is ill-formed. ...

Note that the above changes are included in N1376 as part of the resolution of issue 245.

5.1.1 [expr.prim.general] paragraph 7:

This is only a note, and it is at least incomplete (and quite possibly inaccurate), despite (or because of) its complexity. I propose to delete it.

... [Note: a typedef-name that names a class is a class-name (9.1 [class.name]). Except as the identifier in the declarator for a constructor or destructor definition outside of a class member-specification (12.1 [class.ctor], 12.4 [class.dtor]), a typedef-name that names a class may be used in a qualified-id to refer to a constructor or destructor. ]

7.1.3 [dcl.typedef] paragraph 4:

My first choice would have been to make this the primary statement about the equivalence of typedef-name and class-name, since the equivalence comes about as a result of a typedef declaration. Unfortunately, references to class-name point to 9.1 [class.name], so it would seem that the primary statement should be there instead. To avoid the possiblity of conflicts in the future, I propose to make this a note.

[Note: A typedef-name that names a class type, or a cv-qualified version thereof, is also a class-name (9.1 [class.name]). If a typedef-name is used following the class-key in an elaborated-type-specifier (7.1.6.3 [dcl.type.elab]), or in the class-head of a class declaration (9 [class]), or is used as the identifier in the declarator for a constructor or destructor declaration (12.1 [class.ctor], 12.4 [class.dtor]), to identify the subject of an elaborated-type-specifier (7.1.6.3 [dcl.type.elab]), class declaration (clause 9 [class]), constructor declaration (12.1 [class.ctor]), or destructor declaration (12.4 [class.dtor]), the program is ill-formed. ] [Example: ...

7.1.6.3 [dcl.type.elab] paragraph 2:

This is the only remaining (normative) statement that a typedef-name can't be used in an elaborated-type-specifier. The reference to template type-parameter is deleted by the resolution of issue 283.

... If the identifier resolves to a typedef-name or a template type-parameter, the elaborated-type-specifier is ill-formed. [Note: ...

8 [dcl.decl] grammar rule declarator-id:

When I looked carefully into the statement of the rule prohibiting a typedef-name in a constructor declaration, it appeared to me that this grammar rule (inadvertently?) allows something that's always forbidden semantically.

declarator-id:
id-expression
::_opt nested-name-specifier_opt type-name class-name

9.1 [class.name] paragraph 5:

Unlike the prohibitions against appearing in an elaborated-type-specifier or constructor or destructor declarator, each of which was expressed more than once, the prohibition against a typedef-name appearing in a class-head was previously stated only in 7.1.3 [dcl.typedef]. It seems to me that that prohibition belongs here instead. Also, it seems to me important to clarify that a typedef-name that is a class-name is still a typedef-name. Otherwise, the various prohibitions can be argued around easily, if perversely ("But that isn't a typedef-name, it's a class-name; it says so right there in 9.1 [class.name].")

A typedef-name (7.1.3 [dcl.typedef]) that names a class type or a cv-qualified version thereof is also a class-name, but shall not be used in an elaborated-type-specifier; see also 7.1.3 [dcl.typedef]. as the identifier in a class-head.

12.1 [class.ctor] paragraph 3:

The new nonterminal references are needed to really nail down what we're talking about here. Otherwise, I'm just eliminating redundancy. (A typedef-name that doesn't name a class type is no more valid here than one that does.)

A typedef-name that names a class is a class-name (7.1.3 [dcl.typedef]); however, a A typedef-name that names a class shall not be used as the identifier class-name in the declarator declarator-id for a constructor declaration.

12.4 [class.dtor] paragraph 1:

The same comments apply here as to 12.1 [class.ctor].

... A typedef-name that names a class is a class-name (7.1.3); however, a A typedef-name that names a class shall not be used as the identifier class-name following the ~ in the declarator for a destructor declaration.

318. struct A::A should not name the constructor of A

[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]

A use of an injected-class-name in an elaborated-type-specifier should not name the constructor of the class, but rather the class itself, because in that context we know that we're looking for a type. See issue 147.

Proposed Resolution (revised October 2002):

This clarifies the changes made in the TC for issue 147.

In 3.4.3.1 [class.qual] paragraph 1a replace:

If the nested-name-specifier nominates a class C, and the name specified after the nested-name-specifier, when looked up in C, is the injected class name of C (clause 9 [class]), the name is instead considered to name the constructor of class C.

with

In a lookup in which the constructor is an acceptable lookup result, if the nested-name-specifier nominates a class C and the name specified after the nested-name-specifier, when looked up in C, is the injected class name of C (clause 9 [class]), the name is instead considered to name the constructor of class C. [Note: For example, the constructor is not an acceptable lookup result in an elaborated type specifier so the constructor would not be used in place of the injected class name.]

Note that issue 263 updates a part of the same paragraph.

Append to the example:

  struct A::A a2;  // object of type A

400. Using-declarations and the "struct hack"

[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]

Consider this code:

  struct A { int i; struct i {}; };
  struct B { int i; struct i {}; };
  struct D : public A, public B { using A::i; void f (); };
  void D::f () { struct i x; }

I can't find anything in the standard that says definitively what this means. 7.3.3 [namespace.udecl] says that a using-declaration shall name "a member of a base class" -- but here we have two members, the data member A::i and the class A::i.

Personally, I'd find it more attractive if this code did not work. I'd like "using A::i" to mean "lookup A::i in the usual way and bind B::i to that", which would mean that while "i = 3" would be valid in D::f, "struct i x" would not be. However, if there were no A::i data member, then "A::i" would find the struct and the code in D::f would be valid.

John Spicer: I agree with you, but unfortunately the standard committee did not.

I remembered that this was discussed by the committee and that a resolution was adopted that was different than what I hoped for, but I had a hard time finding definitive wording in the standard.

I went back though my records and found the paper that proposed a resolution and the associated committee motion that adopted the proposed resolution The paper is N0905, and "option 1" from that paper was adopted at the Stockholm meeting in July of 1996. The resolution is that "using A::i" brings in everything named i from A.

3.4.3.2 [namespace.qual] paragraph 2 was modified to implement this resolution, but interestingly that only covers the namespace case and not the class case. I think the class case was overlooked when the wording was drafted. A core issue should be opened to make sure the class case is handled properly.

Notes from April 2003 meeting:

This is related to issue 11. 7.3.3 [namespace.udecl] paragraph 10 has an example for namespaces.

Proposed resolution (October 2003):

Add a bullet to the end of 3.4.3.1 [class.qual] paragraph 1:

• the lookup for a name specified in a using-declaration (7.3.3 [namespace.udecl]) also finds class or enumeration names hidden within the same scope (3.3.10 [basic.scope.hiding]).

Change the beginning of 7.3.3 [namespace.udecl] paragraph 4 from

A using-declaration used as a member-declaration shall refer to a member of a base class of the class being defined, shall refer to a member of an anonymous union that is a member of a base class of the class being defined, or shall refer to an enumerator for an enumeration type that is a member of a base class of the class being defined.

to

In a using-declaration used as a member-declaration, the nested-name-specifier shall name a base class of the class being defined. Such a using-declaration introduces the set of declarations found by member name lookup (10.2 [class.member.lookup], 3.4.3.1 [class.qual]).

245. Name lookup in elaborated-type-specifiers

[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]

I have some concerns with the description of name lookup for elaborated type specifiers in 3.4.4 [basic.lookup.elab]:

1. Paragraph 2 has some parodoxical statements concerning looking up names that are simple identifers:

   If the elaborated-type-specifier refers to an enum-name and this lookup does not find a previously declared enum-name, the elaborated-type-specifier is ill-formed. If the elaborated-type-specifier refers to an [sic] class-name and this lookup does not find a previously declared class-name... the elaborated-type-specifier is a declaration that introduces the class-name as described in 3.3.2 [basic.scope.pdecl]."

   It is not clear how an elaborated-type-specifier can refer to an enum-name or class-name given that the lookup does not find such a name and that class-name and enum-name are not part of the syntax of an elaborated-type-specifier.

2. The second sentence quoted above seems to suggest that the name found will not be used if it is not a class name. typedef-name names are ill-formed due to the sentence preceding the quote. If lookup finds, for instance, an enum-name then a new declaration will be created. This differs from C, and from the enum case, and can have surprising effects:

       struct S {
          enum E {
              one = 1
          };
          class E* p;     // declares a global class E?
       };
   

   Was this really the intent? If this is the case then some more work is needed on 3.4.4 [basic.lookup.elab]. Note that the section does not make finding a type template formal ill-formed, as is done in 7.1.6.3 [dcl.type.elab]. I don't see anything that makes a type template formal name a class-name. So the example in 7.1.6.3 [dcl.type.elab] of friend class T; where T is a template type formal would no longer be ill-formed with this interpretation because it would declare a new class T.

(See also issue 254.)

Notes from the 4/02 meeting:

This will be consolidated with the changes for issue 254. See also issue 298.

Proposed resolution (October 2002):

As given in N1376=02-0034. Note that the inserts and strikeouts in that document do not display correctly in all browsers; <del> --> <strike> and <ins> --> <b>, and the similar changes for the closing delimiters, seem to do the trick.

254. Definitional problems with elaborated-type-specifiers

[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]

1. The text in 3.4.4 [basic.lookup.elab] paragraph 2 twice refers to the possibility that an elaborated-type-specifier might have the form

           class-key identifier ;
   

   However, the grammar for elaborated-type-specifier does not include a semicolon.

2. In both 3.4.4 [basic.lookup.elab] and 7.1.6.3 [dcl.type.elab], the text asserts that an elaborated-type-specifier that refers to a typedef-name is ill-formed. However, it is permissible for the form of elaborated-type-specifier that begins with typename to refer to a typedef-name.

   This problem is the result of adding the typename form to the elaborated-type-name grammar without changing the verbiage correspondingly. It could be fixed either by updating the verbiage or by moving the typename syntax into its own production and referring to both nonterminals when needed.

(See also issue 180. If this issue is resolved in favor of a separate nonterminal in the grammar for the typename forms, the wording in that issue's resolution must be changed accordingly.)

Notes from 04/01 meeting:

The consensus was in favor of moving the typename forms out of the elaborated-type-specifier grammar.

Notes from the 4/02 meeting:

This will be consolidated with the changes for issue 245.

Proposed resolution (October 2002):

As given in N1376=02-0034.

141. Non-member function templates in member access expressions

[Voted into the WP at the June, 2008 meeting.]

3.4.5 [basic.lookup.classref] paragraph 1 says,

In a class member access expression (5.2.5 [expr.ref] ), if the . or -> token is immediately followed by an identifier followed by a <, the identifier must be looked up to determine whether the < is the beginning of a template argument list (14.2 [temp.names] ) or a less-than operator. The identifier is first looked up in the class of the object expression. If the identifier is not found, it is then looked up in the context of the entire postfix-expression and shall name a class or function template.

There do not seem to be any circumstances in which use of a non-member template function would be well-formed as the id-expression of a class member access expression.

Proposed Resolution (November, 2006):

Change 3.4.5 [basic.lookup.classref] paragraph 1 as follows:

In a class member access expression (5.2.5 [expr.ref]), if the . or -> token is immediately followed by an identifier followed by a <, the identifier must be looked up to determine whether the < is the beginning of a template argument list (14.2 [temp.names]) or a less-than operator. The identifier is first looked up in the class of the object expression. If the identifier is not found, it is then looked up in the context of the entire postfix-expression and shall name a class or function template...

305. Name lookup in destructor call

[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]

I believe this program is invalid:

    struct A {
    };

    struct C {
      struct A {};
      void f ();
    };

    void C::f () {
      ::A *a;
      a->~A ();
    }

The EDG front end does not issue an error about this program, though.

Am I reading the standardese incorrectly?

John Spicer: I think you are reading it correctly. I think I've been hoping that this would get changed. Unlike other dual lookup contexts, this is one in which the compiler already knows the right answer (the type must match that of the left hand of the -> operator). So I think that if either of the types found matches the one required, it should be sufficient. You can't say a->~::A(), which means you are forced to say a->::A::~A(), which disables the virtual mechanism. So you would have to do something like create a local typedef for the desired type.

See also issues 244, 399, and 466.

Proposed resolution (April, 2006):

1. Remove the indicated text from 3.4.5 [basic.lookup.classref] paragraph 2:

   If the id-expression in a class member access (5.2.5 [expr.ref]) is an unqualified-id, and the type of the object expression is of a class type C (or of pointer to a class type C), the unqualified-id is looked up in the scope of class C...

2. Change 3.4.5 [basic.lookup.classref] paragraph 3 as indicated:

   If the unqualified-id is ~type-name, the type-name is looked up in the context of the entire postfix-expression. and If the type T of the object expression is of a class type C (or of pointer to a class type C), the type-name is also looked up in the context of the entire postfix-expression and in the scope of class C. The type-name shall refer to a class-name. If type-name is found in both contexts, the name shall refer to the same class type. If the type of the object expression is of scalar type, the type-name is looked up in the scope of the complete postfix-expression. At least one of the lookups shall find a name that refers to (possibly cv-qualified) T. [Example:

   
       struct A { };
   
       struct B {
         struct A { };
         void f(::A* a);
       };
   
       void B::f(::A* a) {
         a->~A();  // OK, lookup in *a finds the injected-class-name
       }
   

   —end example]

[Note: this change also resolves issue 414.]

381. Incorrect example of base class member lookup

[Voted into WP at October 2004 meeting.]

The example in 3.4.5 [basic.lookup.classref] paragraph 4 is wrong (see 11.2 [class.access.base] paragraph 5; the cast to the naming class can't be done) and needs to be corrected. This was noted when the final version of the algorithm for issue 39 was checked against it.

Proposed Resolution (October 2003):

Remove the entire note at the end of 3.4.5 [basic.lookup.classref] paragraph 4, including the entire example.

414. Multiple types found on destructor lookup

[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]

By 3.4.5 [basic.lookup.classref] paragraph 3, the following is ill-formed because the two lookups of the destructor name (in the scope of the class of the object and in the surrounding context) find different Xs:

  struct X {};
  int main() {
    X x;
    struct X {};
    x.~X();  // Error?
  }

This is silly, because the compiler knows what the type has to be, and one of the things found matches that. The lookup should require only that one of the lookups finds the required class type.

Proposed resolution (April, 2005):

This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 305.

216. Linkage of nameless class-scope enumeration types

[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]

A name having namespace scope has external linkage if it is the name of

• [...]
• a named enumeration (7.2 [dcl.enum]), or an unnamed enumeration defined in a typedef declaration in which the enumeration has the typedef name for linkage purposes (7.1.3 [dcl.typedef])

    typedef enum { e1 } *PE;
    void f(PE) {}  // Cannot declare a function (with linkage) using a 
		   // type with no linkage.

However, the same prohibition was not made for class scope types. Indeed, 3.5 [basic.link] paragraph 5 says:

In addition, a member function, static data member, class or enumeration of class scope has external linkage if the name of the class has external linkage.

That allows for:

    struct S {
       typedef enum { e1 } *MPE;
       void mf(MPE) {}
    };

My guess is that this is an unintentional consequence of 3.5 [basic.link] paragraph 5, but I would like confirmation on that.

Proposed resolution:

Change text in 3.5 [basic.link] paragraph 5 from:

In addition, a member function, static data member, class or enumeration of class scope has external linkage if the name of the class has external linkage.

In addition, a member function, a static data member, a named class or enumeration of class scope, or an unnamed class or enumeration defined in a class-scope typedef declaration such that the class or enumeration has the typedef name for linkage purposes (7.1.3 [dcl.typedef]), has external linkage if the name of the class has external linkage.

319. Use of names without linkage in declaring entities with linkage

[Voted into WP at October 2004 meeting.]

According to 3.5 [basic.link] paragraph 8, "A name with no linkage ... shall not be used to declare an entity with linkage." This would appear to rule out code such as:

  typedef struct {
    int i;
  } *PT;
  extern "C" void f(PT);

  static enum { a } e;

See issue 132, which dealt with a closely related issue.

Andrei Iltchenko submitted the same issue via comp.std.c++ on 17 Dec 2001:

Paragraph 8 of Section 3.5 [basic.link] contains the following sentences: "A name with no linkage shall not be used to declare an entity with linkage. If a declaration uses a typedef name, it is the linkage of the type name to which the typedef refers that is considered."

The problem with this wording is that it doesn't cover cases where the type to which a typedef-name refers has no name. As a result it's not clear whether, for example, the following program is well-formed:

#include <vector>

int  main()
{
   enum  {   sz = 6u   };
   typedef int  (* aptr_type)[sz];
   typedef struct  data  {
      int   i,  j;
   }  * elem_type;
   std::vector<aptr_type>   vec1;
   std::vector<elem_type>   vec2;
}

Suggested resolution:

My feeling is that the rules for whether or not a typedef-name used in a declaration shall be treated as having or not having linkage ought to be modelled after those for dependent types, which are explained in 14.6.2.1 [temp.dep.type].

Add the following text at the end of Paragraph 8 of Section 3.5 [basic.link] and replace the following example:

In case of the type referred to by a typedef declaration not having a name, the newly declared typedef-name has linkage if and only if its referred type comprises no names of no linkage excluding local names that are eligible for appearance in an integral constant-expression (5.19 [expr.const]). [Note: if the referred type contains a typedef-name that does not denote an unnamed class, the linkage of that name is established by the recursive application of this rule for the purposes of using typedef names in declarations.] [Example:

  void f()
  {
     struct A { int x; };        // no linkage
     extern A a;                 // ill-formed
     typedef A Bl
     extern B b;                 // ill-formed

     enum  {   sz = 6u   };
     typedef int  (* C)[sz];     // C has linkage because sz can
                                 // appear in a constant expression
  }

--end example.]

Additional issue (13 Jan 2002, from Andrei Iltchenko):

Paragraph 2 of Section 14.3.1 [temp.arg.type] is inaccurate and unnecessarily prohibits a few important cases; it says "A local type, a type with no linkage, an unnamed type or a type compounded from any of these types shall not be used as a template-argument for a template-parameter." The inaccuracy stems from the fact that it is not a type but its name that can have a linkage.

For example based on the current wording of 14.3.1 [temp.arg.type], the following example is ill-formed.

  #include <vector>
  struct  data  {
    int   i,  j;
  };
  int  main()
  {
    enum  {   sz = 6u   };
    std::vector<int(*)[sz]>   vec1; // The types 'int(*)[sz]' and 'data*'
    std::vector<data*>        vec2; // have no names and are thus illegal
                                    // as template type arguments.
  }

Suggested resolution:

Replace the whole second paragraph of Section 14.3.1 [temp.arg.type] with the following wording:

A type whose name does not have a linkage or a type compounded from any such type shall not be used as a template-argument for a template-parameter. In case of a type T used as a template type argument not having a name, T constitutes a valid template type argument if and only if the name of an invented typedef declaration referring to T would have linkage; see 3.5. [Example:

  template <class T> class X { /* ... */ };
  void f()
  {
    struct S { /* ... */ };
    enum  {   sz = 6u   };

    X<S> x3;                     // error: a type name with no linkage
                                 // used as template-argument
    X<S*> x4;                    // error: pointer to a type name with
                                 // no linkage used as template-argument
    X<int(*)[sz]> x5;            // OK: since the name of typedef int
                                 // (*pname)[sz] would have linkage
  }

--end example] [Note: a template type argument may be an incomplete type (3.9 [basic.types]).]

Proposed resolution:

This is resolved by the changes for issue 389. The present issue was moved back to Review status in February 2004 because 389 was moved back to Review.

389. Unnamed types in entities with linkage

[Voted into WP at October 2004 meeting.]

3.5 [basic.link] paragraph 8 says (among other things):

A name with no linkage (notably, the name of a class or enumeration declared in a local scope (3.3.3 [basic.scope.local])) shall not be used to declare an entity with linkage. If a declaration uses a typedef name, it is the linkage of the type name to which the typedef refers that is considered.

I would expect this to catch situations such as the following:

  // File 1:
  typedef struct {} *UP;
  void f(UP) {}

  // File 2:
  typedef struct {} *UP; // Or: typedef struct {} U, *UP;
  void f(UP);

The problem here is that most implementations must generate the same mangled name for "f" in two translation units. The quote from the standard above isn't quite clear, unfortunately: There is no type name to which the typedef refers.

A related situation is the following:

  enum { no, yes } answer;

Finally, these problems are much less relevant when declaring names with internal linkage. For example, I would expect there to be few problems with:

  typedef struct {} *UP;
  static void g(UP);

I recently tried to interpret 3.5 [basic.link] paragraph 8 with the assumption that types with no names have no linkage. Surprisingly, this resulted in many diagnostics on variable declarations (mostly like "answer" above).

I'm pretty sure the standard needs clarifying words in this matter, but which way should it go?

See also issue 319.

Notes from April 2003 meeting:

There was agreement that this check is not needed for variables and functions with extern "C" linkage, and a change there is desirable to allow use of legacy C headers. The check is also not needed for entities with internal linkage, but there was no strong sentiment for changing that case.

We also considered relaxing this requirement for extern "C++" variables but decided that we did not want to change that case.

We noted that if extern "C" functions are allowed an additional check is needed when such functions are used as arguments in calls of function templates. Deduction will put the type of the extern "C" function into the type of the template instance, i.e., there would be a need to mangle the name of an unnamed type. To plug that hole we need an additional requirement on the template created in such a case.

Proposed resolution (April 2003, revised slightly October 2003 and March 2004):

In 3.5 [basic.link] paragraph 8, change

A name with no linkage (notably, the name of a class or enumeration declared in a local scope (3.3.3 [basic.scope.local])) shall not be used to declare an entity with linkage. If a declaration uses a typedef name, it is the linkage of the type name to which the typedef refers that is considered.

to

A type is said to have linkage if and only if

• it is a class or enumeration type that is named (or has a name for linkage purposes (7.1.3 [dcl.typedef])) and the name has linkage; or
• it is a specialization of a class template (14 [temp]) [Footnote: a class template always has external linkage, and the requirements of 14.3.1 [temp.arg.type] and 14.3.2 [temp.arg.nontype] ensure that the template arguments will also have appropriate linkage]; or
• it is a fundamental type (3.9.1 [basic.fundamental]); or
• it is a compound type (3.9.2 [basic.compound]) other than a class or enumeration, compounded exclusively from types that have linkage; or
• it is a cv-qualified (3.9.3 [basic.type.qualifier]) version of a type that has linkage.

A type without linkage shall not be used as the type of a variable or function with linkage, unless the variable or function has extern "C" linkage (7.5 [dcl.link]). [Note: in other words, a type without linkage contains a class or enumeration that cannot be named outside of its translation unit. An entity with external linkage declared using such a type could not correspond to any other entity in another translation unit of the program and is thus not permitted. Also note that classes with linkage may contain members whose types do not have linkage, and that typedef names are ignored in the determination of whether a type has linkage.]

Change 14.3.1 [temp.arg.type] paragraph 2 from (note: this is the wording as updated by issue 62)

The following types shall not be used as a template-argument for a template type-parameter:

• a type whose name has no linkage
• an unnamed class or enumeration type that has no name for linkage purposes (7.1.3 [dcl.typedef])
• a cv-qualified version of one of the types in this list
• a type created by application of declarator operators to one of the types in this list
• a function type that uses one of the types in this list

to

A type without linkage (3.5 [basic.link]) shall not be used as a template-argument for a template type-parameter.

Once this issue is ready, issue 319 should be moved back to ready as well.

474. Block-scope extern declarations in namespace members

[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]

Consider the following bit of code:

    namespace N {
      struct S {
        void f();
      };
    }
    using namespace N;
    void S::f() {
      extern void g();  // ::g or N::g?
    }

In 3.5 [basic.link] paragraph 7 the Standard says (among other things),

When a block scope declaration of an entity with linkage is not found to refer to some other declaration, then that entity is a member of the innermost enclosing namespace.

The question then is whether N is an “enclosing namespace” for the local declaration of g()?

Proposed resolution (October 2004):

Add the following text as a new paragraph at the end of 7.3.1 [namespace.def]:

The enclosing namespaces of a declaration are those namespaces in which the declaration lexically appears, except for a redeclaration of a namespace member outside its original namespace (e.g., a definition as specified in 7.3.1.2 [namespace.memdef]). Such a redeclaration has the same enclosing namespaces as the original declaration. [Example:

  namespace Q {
    namespace V {
      void f(); // enclosing namespaces are the global namespace, Q, and Q::V
      class C { void m(); };
    }
    void V::f() { // enclosing namespaces are the global namespace, Q, and Q::V
      extern void h(); // ... so this declares Q::V::h
    }
    void V::C::m() { // enclosing namespaces are the global namespace, Q, and Q::V
    }
  }

—end example]

270. Order of initialization of static data members of class templates

[Moved to DR at 4/02 meeting.]

The Standard does not appear to address how the rules for order of initialization apply to static data members of class templates.

Suggested resolution: Add the following verbiage to either 3.6.2 [basic.start.init] or 9.4.2 [class.static.data]:

Initialization of static data members of class templates shall be performed during the initialization of static data members for the first translation unit to have static initialization performed for which the template member has been instantiated. This requirement shall apply to both the static and dynamic phases of initialization.

Notes from 04/01 meeting:

Enforcing an order of initialization on static data members of class templates will result in substantial overhead on access to such variables. The problem is that the initialization be required as the result of instantiation in a function used in the initialization of a variable in another translation unit. In current systems, the order of initialization of static data data members of class templates is not predictable. The proposed resolution is to state that the order of initialization is undefined.

Proposed resolution (04/01, updated slightly 10/01):

Replace the following sentence in 3.6.2 [basic.start.init] paragraph 1:

Objects with static storage duration defined in namespace scope in the same translation unit and dynamically initialized shall be initialized in the order in which their definition appears in the translation unit.

with

Dynamic initialization of an object is either ordered or unordered. Explicit specializations and definitions of class template static data members have ordered initialization. Other class template static data member instances have unordered initialization. Other objects defined in namespace scope have ordered initialization. Objects defined within a single translation unit and with ordered initialization shall be initialized in the order of their definitions in the translation unit. The order of initialization is unspecified for objects with unordered initialization and for objects defined in different translation units.

Note that this wording is further updated by issue 362.

Note (07/01):

Brian McNamara argues against the proposed resolution. The following excerpt captures the central point of a long message on comp.std.c++:

I have a class for representing linked lists which looks something like

    template <class T>
    class List {
       ...  static List<T>* sentinel; ...
    };
 
    template <class T>
    List<T>* List<T>::sentinel( new List<T> ); // static member definition

The sentinel list node is used to represent "nil" (the null pointer cannot be used with my implementation, for reasons which are immaterial to this discussion). All of the List's non-static member functions and constructors depend upon the value of the sentinel. Under the proposed resolution for issue #270, Lists cannot be safely instantiated before main() begins, as the sentinel's initialization is "unordered".

(Some readers may propose that I should use the "singleton pattern" in the List class. This is undesirable, for reasons I shall describe at the end of this post at the location marked "[*]". For the moment, indulge me by assuming that "singleton" is not an adequate solution.)

Though this is a particular example from my own experience, I believe it is representative of a general class of examples. It is common to use static data members of a class to represent the "distinguished values" which are important to instances of that class. It is imperative that these values be initialized before any instances of the class are created, as the instances depend on the values.

In a comp.std.c++ posting on 28 Jul 2001, Brian McNamara proposes the following alternative resolution:

Replace the following sentence in 3.6.2 [basic.start.init] paragraph 1:

Objects with static storage duration defined in namespace scope in the same translation unit and dynamically initialized shall be initialized in the order in which their definition appears in the translation unit.

Objects with static storage duration defined in namespace scope shall be initialized in the order described below.

Dynamic initialization is either ordered or quasi-ordered. Explicit specializations of class template static data members have ordered initialization. Other class template static data member instances have quasi-ordered initialization. All other objects defined in namespace scope have ordered initialization. The order of initialization is specified as follows:

• Objects that are defined within a single translation unit and that have ordered initialization shall be initialized in the order of their definitions in the translation unit.
• Objects that are defined only within a single translation unit and that have quasi-ordered initialization shall also be initialized in the order of their definitions in the translation unit -- that is, as though these objects had ordered initialization.
• Objects that are defined within multiple translation units (which, therefore, must have quasi-ordered initialization) shall be initialized as follows: in exactly one translation unit (which one is unspecified), the object shall be treated as though it has ordered initialization; in the other translation units which define the object, the object will be initialized before all other objects that have ordered initialization in those translation units.
• For any two objects, "X" and "Y", with static storage duration and defined in namespace scope, if the previous bullets do not imply a relationship for the initialization ordering between "X" and "Y", then the relative initialization order of these objects is unspecified.

[ Note: The intention is that translation units can each be compiled separately with no knowledge of what objects may be re-defined in other translation units. Each translation unit can contain a method which initializes all objects (both quasi-ordered and ordered) as though they were ordered. When these translation units are linked together to create an executable program, all of these objects can be initialized by simply calling the initialization methods (one from each translation unit) in any order. Quasi-ordered objects require some kind of guard to ensure that they are not initialized more than once (the first attempt to initialize such an object should succeed; any subsequent attempts should simply be ignored). ]

Erwin Unruh replies: There is a point which is not mentioned with this posting. It is the cost for implementing the scheme. It requires that each static template variable is instantiated in ALL translation units where it is used. There has to be a flag for each of these variables and this flag has to be checked in each TU where the instantiation took place.

I would reject this idea and stand with the proposed resolution of issue 270.

There just is no portable way to ensure the "right" ordering of construction.

Notes from 10/01 meeting:

The Core Working Group reaffirmed its previous decision.

441. Ordering of static reference initialization

[Voted into WP at April 2005 meeting.]

I have a couple of questions about 3.6.2 [basic.start.init], "Initialization of non-local objects." I believe I recall some discussion of related topics, but I can't find anything relevant in the issues list.

The first question arose when I discovered that different implementations treat reference initialization differently. Consider, for example, the following (namespace-scope) code:

  int i;
  int& ir = i;
  int* ip = &i;

Zero-initialization and initialization with a constant expression are collectively called static initialization; all other initialization is dynamic initialization.

However, that does not mean that both ir and ip must be initialized at the same time:

Objects of POD types (3.9) with static storage duration initialized with constant expressions (5.19) shall be initialized before any dynamic initialization takes place.

Because "int&" is not a POD type, there is no requirement that it be initialized before dynamic initialization is performed, and implementations differ in this regard. Using a function called during dynamic initialization to print the values of "ip" and "&ir", I found that g++, Sun, HP, and Intel compilers initialize ir before dynamic initialization and the Microsoft compiler does not. All initialize ip before dynamic initialization. I believe this is conforming (albeit inconvenient :-) behavior.

So, my first question is whether it is intentional that a reference of static duration, initialized with a reference constant expression, need not be initialized before dynamic initialization takes place, and if so, why?

The second question is somewhat broader. As 3.6.2 [basic.start.init] is currently worded, it appears that there are no requirements on when ir is initialized. In fact, there is a whole category of objects -- non-POD objects initialized with a constant expression -- for which no ordering is specified. Because they are categorized as part of "static initialization," they are not subject to the requirement that they "shall be initialized in the order in which their definition appears in the translation unit." Because they are not POD types, they are not required to be initialized before dynamic initialization occurs. Am I reading this right?

My preference would be to change 3.6.2 [basic.start.init] paragraph 1 so that 1) references are treated like POD objects with respect to initialization, and 2) "static initialization" applies only to POD objects and references. Here's some sample wording to illustrate:

Suggested resolution:

Objects with static storage duration (3.7.1) shall be zero-initialized (8.5) before any other initialization takes place. Initializing a reference, or an object of POD type, of static storage duration with a constant expression (5.19) is called constant initialization. Together, zero-initialization and constant initialization are called static initialization; all other initialization is dynamic initialization. Static initialization shall be performed before any dynamic initialization takes place. [Remainder unchanged.]

Proposed Resolution:

Change 3.6.2 [basic.start.init] paragraph 1 as follows:

Objects with static storage duration (3.7.1) shall be zero-initialized (8.5) before any other initialization takes place. Initializing a reference, or an object of POD type, of static storage duration with a constant expression (5.19) is called constant initialization. Together, zero-initialization and constant initialization are Zero-initialization and initialization with a constant expression are collectively called static initialization; all other initialization is dynamic initialization. Static initialization shall be performed Objects of POD types (3.9) with static storage duration initialized with constant expressions (5.19) shall be initialized before any dynamic initialization takes place.

688. Constexpr constructors and static initialization

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting (resolution in paper N2757).]

Given this literal type,

    struct X {
        constexpr X() { }
    };

and this definition,

    static X x;

the current specification does not require that x be statically initialized because it is not “initialized with a constant expression” (3.6.1 [basic.start.main] paragraph 1).

Lawrence Crowl:

This guarantee is essential for atomics.

Jens Maurer:

Suggestion:

A reference with static storage duration or an object of literal type with static storage duration can be initialized with a constant expression (5.19 [expr.const]) or with a constexpr constructor; this is called constant initialization.

(Not spelling out “default constructor” makes it easier to handle multiple-parameter constexpr constructors, where there isn't “a” constant expression but several.)

Peter Dimov:

In addition, there is a need to enforce static initialization for non-literal types: std::shared_ptr, std::once_flag, and std::atomic_* all have nontrivial copy constructors, making them non-literal types. However, we need a way to ensure that a constexpr constructor called with constant expressions will guarantee static initialization, regardless of the nontriviality of the copy constructor.

Proposed resolution (April, 2008):

1. Change 3.6.2 [basic.start.init] paragraph 1 as follows:

...A reference with static storage duration and an object of trivial or literal type with static storage duration can be initialized with a constant expression (5.19 [expr.const]); this If a reference with static storage duration is initialized with a constant expression (5.19 [expr.const]) or if the initialization of an object with static storage duration satisfies the requirements for the object being declared with constexpr (7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr]), that initialization is called constant initialization...

2. Change 6.7 [stmt.dcl] paragraph 4 as follows:

...A local object of trivial or literal type (3.9 [basic.types]) with static storage duration initialized with constant-expressions is initialized Constant initialization (3.6.2 [basic.start.init]) of a local entity with static storage duration is performed before its block is first entered...

3. Change 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 7 as follows:

A constexpr specifier used in an object declaration declares the object as const. Such an object shall be initialized, and every expression that appears in its initializer (8.5 [dcl.init]) shall be a constant expression. Every implicit conversion used in converting the initializer expressions and every constructor call used for the initialization shall be one of those allowed in a constant expression (5.19 [expr.const])...

4. Replace 8.5.1 [dcl.init.aggr] paragraph 14 as follows:

When an aggregate with static storage duration is initialized with a brace-enclosed initializer-list, if all the member initializer expressions are constant expressions, and the aggregate is a trivial type, the initialization shall be done during the static phase of initialization (3.6.2 [basic.start.init]); otherwise, it is unspecified whether the initialization of members with constant expressions takes place during the static phase or during the dynamic phase of initialization. [Note: The order of initialization for aggregates with static storage duration is specified in 3.6.2 [basic.start.init] and 6.7 [stmt.dcl]. —end note]

(Note: the change to 3.6.2 [basic.start.init] paragraph 1 needs to be reconciled with the conflicting change in issue 684.)

28. 'exit', 'signal' and static object destruction

[Voted into the WP at the June, 2008 meeting.]

The C++ standard has inherited the definition of the 'exit' function more or less unchanged from ISO C.

However, when the 'exit' function is called, objects of static extent which have been initialised, will be destructed if their types posses a destructor.

In addition, the C++ standard has inherited the definition of the 'signal' function and its handlers from ISO C, also pretty much unchanged.

The C standard says that the only standard library functions that may be called while a signal handler is executing, are the functions 'abort', 'signal' and 'exit'.

This introduces a bit of a nasty turn, as it is not at all unusual for the destruction of static objects to have fairly complex destruction semantics, often associated with resource release. These quite commonly involve apparently simple actions such as calling 'fclose' for a FILE handle.

Having observed some very strange behaviour in a program recently which in handling a SIGTERM signal, called the 'exit' function as indicated by the C standard.

But unknown to the programmer, a library static object performed some complicated resource deallocation activities, and the program crashed.

The C++ standard says nothing about the interaction between signals, exit and static objects. My observations, was that in effect, because the destructor called a standard library function other than 'abort', 'exit' or 'signal', while transitively in the execution context of the signal handler, it was in fact non-compliant, and the behaviour was undefined anyway.

This is I believe a plausible judgement, but given the prevalence of this common programming technique, it seems to me that we need to say something a lot more positive about this interaction.

Curiously enough, the C standard fails to say anything about the analogous interaction with functions registered with 'atexit' ;-)

Proposed Resolution (10/98):

The current Committee Draft of the next version of the ISO C standard specifies that the only standard library function that may be called while a signal handler is executing is 'abort'. This would solve the above problem.

[This issue should remain open until it has been decided that the next version of the C++ standard will use the next version of the C standard as the basis for the behavior of 'signal'.]

Notes (November, 2006):

C89 is slightly contradictory here: It allows any signal handler to terminate by calling abort, exit, longjmp, but (for asynchronous signals, i.e. not those produced by abort or raise) then makes calling any library function other than signal with the current signal undefined behavior (C89 7.7.1.1). For synchronous signals, C99 forbids calls to raise, but imposes no other restrictions. For asynchronous signals, C99 allows only calls to abort, _Exit, and signal with the current signal (C99 7.14.1.1). The current C++ WP refers to “plain old functions” and “conforming C programs” (18.10 [support.runtime] paragraph 6).

Proposed Resolution (November, 2006):

Change the footnote in 18.10 [support.runtime] paragraph 6 as follows:

In particular, a signal handler using exception handling is very likely to have problems. Also, invoking std::exit may cause destruction of objects, including those of the standard library implementation, which, in general, yields undefined behavior in a signal handler (see 1.9 [intro.execution]).

521. Requirements for exceptions thrown by allocation functions

[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]

According to 3.7.4.1 [basic.stc.dynamic.allocation] paragraph 3,

Any other allocation function that fails to allocate storage shall only indicate failure by throwing an exception of class std::bad_alloc (18.6.2.1 [bad.alloc]) or a class derived from std::bad_alloc.

Shouldn't this statement have the usual requirements for an unambiguous and accessible base class?

Proposed resolution (April, 2006):

Change the last sentence of 3.7.4.1 [basic.stc.dynamic.allocation] paragraph 3 as indicated:

Any other allocation function that fails to allocate storage shall only indicate failure only by throwing an exception of class std::bad_alloc (18.6.2.1 [bad.alloc]) or a class derived from std::bad_alloc a type that would match a handler (15.3 [except.handle]) of type std::bad_alloc (18.6.2.1 [bad.alloc]).

220. All deallocation functions should be required not to throw

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting (resolution in paper N2757).]

[Picked up by evolution group at October 2002 meeting.]

The default global operators delete are specified to not throw, but there is no requirement that replacement global, or class-specific, operators delete must not throw. That ought to be required.

In particular:

• 3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation] paragraph 2, at the end of the first sentence, should also require that no exceptions be thrown.
• 12.5 [class.free], including its examples, should require nonthrowing class-specific operator delete.
• 17.6.4.6 [replacement.functions] paragraph 2 should append throw() to the signature of each of the four operators delete.

We already require that all versions of an allocator's deallocate() must not throw, so that part is okay.

Rationale (04/00):

1. Replacement deallocation functions are already required not to throw an exception (cf 17.6.4.8 [res.on.functions] paragraph 2, as applied to 18.6.1.1 [new.delete.single] paragraph 12 and 18.6.1.2 [new.delete.array] paragraph 11).
2. Section 17.6.4.6 [replacement.functions] is describing the signatures of the functions to be replaced; exception specfications are not part of the signature.
3. There does not appear to be any pressing need to require that class member deallocation functions not throw.

Note (March, 2008):

The Evolution Working Group has accepted the intent of this issue and referred it to CWG for action for C++0x (see paper J16/07-0033 = WG21 N2173).

Proposed resolution (March, 2008):

Change 3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation] paragraph 3 as follows:

A deallocation function shall not terminate by throwing an exception. The value of the first argument supplied to a deallocation function...

348. delete and user-written deallocation functions

[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]

Standard is clear on behaviour of default allocation/deallocation functions. However, it is surpisingly vague on requirements to the behaviour of user-defined deallocation function and an interaction between delete-expression and deallocation function. This caused a heated argument on fido7.su.c-cpp newsgroup.

Resume:

It is not clear if user-supplied deallocation function is called from delete-expr when the operand of delete-expr is the null pointer (5.3.5 [expr.delete]). If it is, standard does not specify what user-supplied deallocation function shall do with the null pointer operand (18.6.1 [new.delete]). Instead, Standard uses the term "has no effect", which meaning is too vague in context given (5.3.5 [expr.delete]).

Description:

Consider statements

   char* p= 0; //result of failed non-throwing ::new char[]
   ::delete[] p;

Standard does NOT specify whether user-defined deallocation function should be called in this case, or not.

Specifically, standard says in 5.3.5 [expr.delete] paragraph 2:

...if the value of the operand of delete is the null pointer the operation has no effect.

Furthermore, in para 4 standard says on default deallocation function:

If the delete-expression calls the implementation deallocation function (3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation]), if the operand of the delete expression is not the null pointer constant, ...

If "has no effect" is a requirement to the deallocation function, then it should be stated in 3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation], or in 18.6.1.1 [new.delete.single] and 18.6.1.2 [new.delete.array], and it should be stated explicitly.

Furthermore, standard does NOT specify what actions shall be performed by user-supplied deallocation function if NULL is given (18.6.1.1 [new.delete.single] paragraph 12):

Required behaviour: accept a value of ptr that is null or that was returned by an earlier call to the default operator new(std::size_t) or operator new(std::size_t, const std::nothrow_t&).

The same corresponds to ::delete[] case.

Expected solution:

1. Make it clear that delete-expr will not call deallocation function if null pointer is given (in 5.3.5 [expr.delete]).
2. Specify what user deallocation function shall do when null is given (either in 3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation], or in 18.6.1.1 [new.delete.single], and 18.6.1.2 [new.delete.array]).

Notes from October 2002 meeting:

We believe that study of 18.6.1.1 [new.delete.single] paragraphs 12 and 13, 18.6.1.2 [new.delete.array] paragraphs 11 and 12, and 3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation] paragraph 3 shows that the system-provided operator delete functions must accept a null pointer and ignore it. Those sections also show that a user-written replacement for the system-provided operator delete functions must accept a null pointer. There is no requirement that such functions ignore a null pointer, which is okay -- perhaps the reason for replacing the system-provided functions is to do something special with null pointer values (e.g., log such calls and return).

We believe that the standard should not require an implementation to call a delete function with a null pointer, but it must allow that. For the system-provided delete functions or replacements thereof, the standard already makes it clear that the delete function must accept a null pointer. For class-specific delete functions, we believe the standard should require that such functions accept a null pointer, though it should not mandate what they do with null pointers.

5.3.5 [expr.delete] needs to be updated to say that it is unspecified whether or not the operator delete function is called with a null pointer, and 3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation] needs to be updated to say that any deallocation function must accept a null pointer.

Proposed resolution (October, 2004):

1. Change 5.3.5 [expr.delete] paragraph 2 as indicated:

   If the operand has a class type, the operand is converted to a pointer type by calling the above-mentioned conversion function, and the converted operand is used in place of the original operand for the remainder of this section. In either alternative, if the value of the operand of delete is the null pointer the operation has no effect may be a null pointer value. If it is not a null pointer value, in In the first alternative (delete object), the value of the operand of delete shall be a pointer to a non-array object or a pointer to a sub-object (1.8 [intro.object]) representing a base class of such an object (clause 10 [class.derived])...

2. Change 5.3.5 [expr.delete] paragraph 4 as follows (note that the old wording reflects the changes proposed by issue 442:

   The cast-expression in a delete-expression shall be evaluated exactly once. If the delete-expression calls the implementation deallocation function (3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation]), and if the value of the operand of the delete expression is not a null pointer, the deallocation function will deallocate the storage referenced by the pointer thus rendering the pointer invalid. [Note: the value of a pointer that refers to deallocated storage is indeterminate. —end note]

3. Change 5.3.5 [expr.delete] paragraphs 6-7 as follows:

   The If the value of the operand of the delete-expression is not a null pointer value, the delete-expression will invoke the destructor (if any) for the object or the elements of the array being deleted. In the case of an array, the elements will be destroyed in order of decreasing address (that is, in reverse order of the completion of their constructor; see 12.6.2 [class.base.init]).

   The If the value of the operand of the delete-expression is not a null pointer value, the delete-expression will call a deallocation function (3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation]). Otherwise, it is unspecified whether the deallocation function will be called. [Note: The deallocation function is called regardless of whether the destructor for the object or some element of the array throws an exception. —end note]

4. Change 3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation] paragraph 3 as indicated:

   The value of the first argument supplied to one of the a deallocation functions provided in the standard library may be a null pointer value; if so, and if the deallocation function is one supplied in the standard library, the call to the deallocation function has no effect. Otherwise, the value supplied to operator delete(void*) in the standard library shall be one of the values returned by a previous invocation of either operator new(std::size_t) or operator new(std::size_t, const std::nothrow_t&) in the standard library, and the value supplied to operator delete[](void*) in the standard library shall be one of the values returned by a previous invocation of either operator new[](std::size_t) or operator new[](std::size_t, const std::nothrow_t&) in the standard library.

[Note: this resolution also resolves issue 442.]

119. Object lifetime and aggregate initialization

[Moved to DR at 4/02 meeting.]

Jack Rouse: 3.8 [basic.life] paragraph 1 includes:

The lifetime of an object is a runtime property of the object. The lifetime of an object of type T begins when:

• storage with the proper alignment and size for type T is obtained, and
• if T is a class type with a non-trivial constructor (12.1 [class.ctor] ), the constructor call has completed.

    struct B {
        B( int = 0 );
        ~B();
    };

    struct S {
        B b1;
    };

    int main()
    {
        S s = { 1 };
        return 0;
    }

Mike Miller: I see a couple of ways of fixing the problem. One way would be to change "the constructor call has completed" to "the object's initialization is complete."

Another would be to add following "a class type with a non-trivial constructor" the phrase "that is not initialized with the brace notation (8.5.1 [dcl.init.aggr] )."

The first formulation treats aggregate initialization like a constructor call; even POD-type members of an aggregate could not be accessed before the aggregate initialization completed. The second is less restrictive; the POD-type members of the aggregate would be usable before the initialization, and the members with non-trivial constructors (the only way an aggregate can acquire a non-trivial constructor) would be protected by recursive application of the lifetime rule.

Proposed resolution (04/01):

In 3.8 [basic.life] paragraph 1, change

If T is a class type with a non-trivial constructor (12.1 [class.ctor]), the constructor call has completed.

to

If T is a class type with a non-trivial constructor (12.1 [class.ctor]), the initialization is complete. [Note: the initialization can be performed by a constructor call or, in the case of an aggregate with an implicitly-declared non-trivial default constructor, an aggregate initialization (8.5.1 [dcl.init.aggr]).]

274. Cv-qualification and char-alias access to out-of-lifetime objects

[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]

The wording in 3.8 [basic.life] paragraph 6 allows an lvalue designating an out-of-lifetime object to be used as the operand of a static_cast only if the conversion is ultimately to "char&" or "unsigned char&". This description excludes the possibility of using a cv-qualified version of these types for no apparent reason.

Notes on 04/01 meeting:

The wording should be changed to allow cv-qualified char types.

Proposed resolution (04/01):

In 3.8 [basic.life] paragraph 6 change the third bullet:

• the lvalue is used as the operand of a static_cast (5.2.9 [expr.static.cast]) (except when the conversion is ultimately to char& or unsigned char&), or

• the lvalue is used as the operand of a static_cast (5.2.9 [expr.static.cast]) except when the conversion is ultimately to cv char& or cv unsigned char&, or

404. Unclear reference to construction with non-trivial constructor

[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]

3.8 [basic.life] paragraph 1 second bullet says:

if T is a class type with a non-trivial constructor (12.1), the constructor call has completed.

This is confusing; what was intended is probably something like

if T is a class type and the constructor invoked to create the object is non-trivial (12.1), the constructor call has completed.

Proposed Resolution (October 2003):

As given above.

594. Coordinating issues 119 and 404 with delegating constructors

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]

In ISO/IEC 14882:2003, the second bullet of 3.8 [basic.life] paragraph 1 reads,

if T is a class type with a non-trivial constructor (12.1 [class.ctor]), the constructor call has completed.

Issue 119 pointed out that aggregate initialization can be used with some classes with a non-trivial implicitly-declared default constructor, and that in such cases there is no call to the object's constructor. The resolution for that issue was to change the previously-cited wording to read,

If T is a class type with a non-trivial constructor (12.1 [class.ctor], the initialization is complete.

Later (but before the WP was revised with the wording from the resolution of issue 119), issue 404 changed the 2003 wording to read,

If T is a class type and the constructor invoked to create the object is non-trivial (12.1 [class.ctor]), the constructor call has completed.

thus reversing the effect of issue 119, whose whole purpose was to cover objects with non-trivial constructors that are not invoked.

Through an editorial error, the post-Redmond draft (N1905) still contained the original 2003 wording that should have been replaced by the resolution of issue 119, in addition to the new wording from the resolution:

if T is a class type and the constructor invoked to create the object is non-trivial (12.1 [class.ctor]), the constructor call has completed. the initialization is complete.

Finally, during the application of the edits for delegating constructors (N1986), this editing error was “fixed” by retaining the original 2003 wording (which was needed for the application of the change specified in N1986), so that the current draft (N2009) reads,

if T is a class type and the constructor invoked to create the object is non-trivial (12.1 [class.ctor]), the principal constructor call 12.6.2 [class.base.init]) has completed.

Because the completion of the call to the principal constructor corresponds to the point at which the object is “fully constructed” (15.2 [except.ctor] paragraph 2), i.e., its initialization is complete, I believe that the exact wording of the issue 119 resolution would be correct and should be restored verbatim.

Proposed resolution (June, 2008):

Change 3.8 [basic.life] paragraph 1 as follows:

The lifetime of an object is a runtime property of the object. An object is said to have non-trivial initialization if it is of a class or aggregate type and it or one of its members is initialized by a constructor other than a trivial default constructor. [Note: Initialization by a trivial copy constructor is non-trivial initialization. —end note] The lifetime of an object of type T begins when:

• storage with the proper alignment and size for type T is obtained, and

• if T is a class type and the constructor invoked to create the object is non-trivial (12.1 [class.ctor]), the principal constructor call (12.6.2 [class.base.init]) has completed. [Note: the initialization can be performed by a constructor call or, in the case of an aggregate with an implicitly-declared non-trivial default constructor, an aggregate initialization 8.5.1 [dcl.init.aggr]. —end note] the object has non-trivial initialization, its initialization is complete.

The lifetime of an object of type T ends when...

644. Should a trivial class type be a literal type?

[Voted into the WP at the June, 2008 meeting.]

The original proposed wording for 3.9 [basic.types] paragraph 11 required a constexpr constructor for a literal class only “if the class has at least one user-declared constructor.” This wording was dropped during the review by CWG out of a desire to ensure that literal types not have any uninitialized members. Thus, a class like

    struct pixel {
        int x, y;
    };

is not a literal type. However, if an object of that type is aggregate-initialized or value-initialized, there can be no uninitialized members; the missing wording should be restored in order to permit use of expressions like pixel().x as constant expressions.

Proposed resolution (February, 2008):

Change 3.9 [basic.types] paragraph 10 as follows:

A type is a literal type if it is:

• a scalar type; or
• a class type (clause 9 [class]) with
• a trivial copy constructor,
• a trivial destructor,
• a trivial default constructor or at least one constexpr constructor other than the copy constructor,
• no virtual base classes, and
• all non-static data members and base classes of literal types; or
• an array of literal type.

158. Aliasing and qualification conversions

[Moved to DR at 4/02 meeting.]

3.10 [basic.lval] paragraph 15 lists the types via which an lvalue can be used to access the stored value of an object; using an lvalue type that is not listed results in undefined behavior. It is permitted to add cv-qualification to the actual type of the object in this access, but only at the top level of the type ("a cv-qualified version of the dynamic type of the object").

However, 4.4 [conv.qual] paragraph 4 permits a "conversion [to] add cv-qualifiers at levels other than the first in multi-level pointers." The combination of these two rules allows creation of pointers that cannot be dereferenced without causing undefined behavior. For instance:

    int* jp;
    const int * const * p1 = &jp;
    *p1;    // undefined behavior!

The reason that *p1 results in undefined behavior is that the type of the lvalue is const int * const", which is not "a cv-qualified version of" int*.

Since the conversion is permitted, we must give it defined semantics, hence we need to fix the wording in 3.10 [basic.lval] to include all possible conversions of the type via 4.4 [conv.qual].

Proposed resolution (04/01):

Add a new bullet to 3.10 [basic.lval] paragraph 15, following "a cv-qualified version of the dynamic type of the object:"

• A type similar (as defined in 4.4 [conv.qual]) to the dynamic type of the object,

649. Optionally ill-formed extended alignment requests

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]

The requirements on an implementation when presented with an alignment-specifier not supported by that implementation in that context are contradictory: 3.11 [basic.align] paragraph 9 says,

If a request for a specific extended alignment in a specific context is not supported by an implementation, the implementation may reject the request as ill-formed. The implementation may also silently ignore the requested alignment.

In contrast, 7.6.2 [dcl.align] paragraph 2, bullet 4 says simply,

• if the constant expression evaluates to an extended alignment and the implementation does not support that alignment in the context of the declaration, the program is ill-formed

with no provision to “silently ignore” the requested alignment. These two passages need to be reconciled.

If the outcome of the reconciliation is to grant implementations the license to accept and ignore extended alignment requests, the specification should be framed in terms of mechanisms that already exist in the Standard, such as undefined behavior and/or conditionally-supported constructs; “ill-formed” is a category that is defined by the Standard, not something that an implementation can decide.

Notes from the February, 2008 meeting:

The consensus was that such requests should be ill-formed and require a diagnostic. However, it was also observed that an implementation need not reject an ill-formed program; the only requirement is that it issue a diagnostic. It would thus be permissible for an implementation to “noisily ignore” (as opposed to “silently ignoring”) an unsupported alignment request.

Proposed resolution (June, 2008):

Change 3.11 [basic.align] paragraph 9 as follows:

If a request for a specific extended alignment in a specific context is not supported by an implementation, the implementation may reject the request as program is ill-formed. The implementation may also silently ignore the requested alignment. [Note: aAdditionally, a request for runtime allocation of dynamic memory storage for which the requested alignment cannot be honored may shall be treated as an allocation failure. —end note]

519. Null pointer preservation in void* conversions

[Voted into WP at April, 2006 meeting.]

The C standard says in 6.3.2.3, paragraph 4:

Conversion of a null pointer to another pointer type yields a null pointer of that type. Any two null pointers shall compare equal.

C++ appears to be incompatible with the first sentence in only two areas:

    A *a = 0;
    void *v = a;

C++ (4.10 [conv.ptr] paragraph 2) says nothing about the value of v.

    void *v = 0;
    A *b = (A*)v; // aka static_cast<A*>(v)

C++ (5.2.9 [expr.static.cast] paragraph 10) says nothing about the value of b.

Suggested changes:

1. Add the following sentence to 4.10 [conv.ptr] paragraph 2:

The null pointer value is converted to the null pointer value of the destination type.

2. Add the following sentence to 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast] paragraph 10:

The null pointer value (4.10 [conv.ptr]) is converted to the null pointer value of the destination type.

Proposed resolution (October, 2005):

1. Add the indicated words to 4.10 [conv.ptr] paragraph 2:

An rvalue of type “pointer to cv T,” where T is an object type, can be converted to an rvalue of type “pointer to cv void”. The result of converting a “pointer to cv T” to a “pointer to cv void” points to the start of the storage location where the object of type T resides, as if the object is a most derived object (1.8 [intro.object]) of type T (that is, not a base class subobject). The null pointer value is converted to the null pointer value of the destination type.

2. Add the indicated words to 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast] paragraph 11:

An rvalue of type “pointer to cv1 void” can be converted to an rvalue of type “pointer to cv2 T,” where T is an object type and cv2 is the same cv-qualification as, or greater cv-qualification than, cv1. The null pointer value is converted to the null pointer value of the destination type. A value of type pointer to object converted to “pointer to cv void” and back, possibly with different cv-qualification, shall have its original value...

654. Conversions to and from nullptr_t

[Voted into the WP at the June, 2008 meeting as paper N2656.]

In the interest of promoting use of nullptr instead of the integer literal 0 as the null pointer constant, the proposal accepted by the Committee does not provide for converting a zero-valued integral constant to type std::nullptr_t. However, this omission reduces the utility of the feature for use in the library for smart pointers. In particular, the addition of that conversion (along with a converting constructor accepting a std::nullptr_t) would allow smart pointers to be used just like ordinary pointers in expressions like:

    if (p == 0) { }
    if (0 == p) { }
    if (p != 0) { }
    if (0 != p) { }
    p = 0;

The existing use of the “unspecified bool type” idiom supports this usage, but being able to use std::nullptr_t instead would be simpler and more elegant.

Jason Merrill: I have another reason to support the conversion as well: it seems to me very odd for nullptr_t to be more restrictive than void*. Anything we can do with an arbitrary pointer, we ought to be able to do with nullptr_t as well. Specifically, since there is a standard conversion from literal 0 to void*, and there is a standard conversion from void* to bool, nullptr_t should support the same conversions.

This changes two of the example lines in the proposal as adopted:

    if (nullptr) ;      // error, no conversion to bool
    if (nullptr == 0) ; // error

become

    if (nullptr) ;      // evaluates to false
    if( nullptr == 0 ); // evaluates to true

And later,

    char* ch3 = expr ? nullptr : nullptr; // ch3 is the null pointer value
    char* ch4 = expr ? 0 : nullptr;       // ch4 is the null pointer value
    int n3 = expr ? nullptr : nullptr;    // error, nullptr_t can’t be converted to int
    int n4 = expr ? 0 : nullptr;          // error, nullptr_t can’t be converted to int

I would also allow reinterpret_cast from nullptr_t to integral type, with the same semantics as a reinterpret_cast from the null pointer value to integral type.

Basically, I would like nullptr_t to act like a void* which is constrained to always be (void*)0.

480. Is a base of a virtual base also virtual?

[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]

When the Standard refers to a virtual base class, it should be understood to include base classes of virtual bases. However, the Standard doesn't actually say this anywhere, so when 4.11 [conv.mem] (for example) forbids casting to a derived class member pointer from a virtual base class member pointer, it could be read as meaning:

  struct B {};
  struct D : public B {};
  struct D2 : virtual public D {};

  int B::*p;
  int D::*q;

  void f() {
    static_cast<int D2::*>(p);  // permitted
    static_cast<int D2::*>(q);  // forbidden
  }

Proposed resolution (October, 2005):

1. Change 4.11 [conv.mem] paragraph 2 as indicated:

...If B is an inaccessible (clause 11 [class.access]), ambiguous (10.2 [class.member.lookup]) or virtual (10.1 [class.mi]) base class of D, or a base class of a virtual base class of D, a program that necessitates this conversion is ill-formed...

2. Change 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast] paragraph 2 as indicated:

...and B is not neither a virtual base class of D nor a base class of a virtual base class of D...

3. Change 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast] paragraph 9 as indicated:

...and B is not neither a virtual base class of D nor a base class of a virtual base class of D...

222. Sequence points and lvalue-returning operators

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]

I believe that the committee has neglected to take into account one of the differences between C and C++ when defining sequence points. As an example, consider

    (a += b) += c;

where a, b, and c all have type int. I believe that this expression has undefined behavior, even though it is well-formed. It is not well-formed in C, because += returns an rvalue there. The reason for the undefined behavior is that it modifies the value of `a' twice between sequence points.

Expressions such as this one are sometimes genuinely useful. Of course, we could write this particular example as

    a += b; a += c;

but what about

    void scale(double* p, int n, double x, double y) {
        for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
            (p[i] *= x) += y;
        }
    }

All of the potential rewrites involve multiply-evaluating p[i] or unobvious circumlocations like creating references to the array element.

One way to deal with this issue would be to include built-in operators in the rule that puts a sequence point between evaluating a function's arguments and evaluating the function itself. However, that might be overkill: I see no reason to require that in

    x[i++] = y;

the contents of `i' must be incremented before the assignment.

A less stringent alternative might be to say that when a built-in operator yields an lvalue, the implementation shall not subsequently change the value of that object as a consequence of that operator.

I find it hard to imagine an implementation that does not do this already. Am I wrong? Is there any implementation out there that does not `do the right thing' already for (a += b) += c?

5.17 [expr.ass] paragraph 1 says,

The result of the assignment operation is the value stored in the left operand after the assignment has taken place; the result is an lvalue.

What is the normative effect of the words "after the assignment has taken place"? I think that phrase ought to mean that in addition to whatever constraints the rules about sequence points might impose on the implementation, assignment operators on built-in types have the additional constraint that they must store the left-hand side's new value before returning a reference to that object as their result.

One could argue that as the C++ standard currently stands, the effect of x = y = 0; is undefined. The reason is that it both fetches and stores the value of y, and does not fetch the value of y in order to compute its new value.

I'm suggesting that the phrase "after the assignment has taken place" should be read as constraining the implementation to set y to 0 before yielding the value of y as the result of the subexpression y = 0.

Francis Glassborow:

My understanding is that for a single variable:

1. Multiple read accesses without a write are OK
2. A single read access followed by a single write (of a value dependant on the read, so that the read MUST happen first) is OK
3. A write followed by an actual read is undefined behaviour
4. Multiple writes have undefined behaviour

It is the 3) that is often ignored because in practice the compiler hardly ever codes for the read because it already has that value but in complicated evaluations with a shortage of registers, that is not always the case. Without getting too close to the hardware, I think we both know that a read too close to a write can be problematical on some hardware.

So, in x = y = 0;, the implementation must NOT fetch a value from y, instead it has to "know" what that value will be (easy because it has just computed that in order to know what it must, at some time, store in y). From this I deduce that computing the lvalue (to know where to store) and the rvalue to know what is stored are two entirely independent actions that can occur in any order commensurate with the overall requirements that both operands for an operator be evaluated before the operator is.

Erwin Unruh:

C distinguishes between the resulting value of an assignment and putting the value in store. So in C a compiler might implement the statement x=y=0; either as x=0;y=0; or as y=0;x=0; In C the statement (x += 5) += 7; is not allowed because the first += yields an rvalue which is not allowed as left operand to +=. So in C an assignment is not a sequence of write/read because the result is not really "read".

In C++ we decided to make the result of assignment an lvalue. In this case we do not have the option to specify the "value" of the result. That is just the variable itself (or its address in a different view). So in C++, strictly speaking, the statement x=y=0; must be implemented as y=0;x=y; which makes a big difference if y is declared volatile.

Furthermore, I think undefined behaviour should not be the result of a single mentioning of a variable within an expression. So the statement (x +=5) += 7; should NOT have undefined behaviour.

In my view the semantics could be:

1. if the result of an assignment is used as an rvalue, its value is that of the variable after assignment. The actual store takes place before the next sequence point, but may be before the value is used. This is consistent with C usage.
2. if the result of an assignment is used as an lvalue to store another value, then the new value will be stored in the variable before the next sequence point. It is unspecified whether the first assigned value is stored intermediately.
3. if the result of an assignment is used as an lvalue to take an address, that address is given (it doesn't change). The actual store of the new value takes place before the next sequence point.

Jerry Schwarz:

My recollection is different from Erwin's. I am confident that the intention when we decided to make assignments lvalues was not to change the semantics of evaluation of assignments. The semantics was supposed to remain the same as C's.

Ervin seems to assume that because assignments are lvalues, an assignment's value must be determined by a read of the location. But that was definitely not our intention. As he notes this has a significant impact on the semantics of assignment to a volatile variable. If Erwin's interpretation were correct we would have no way to write a volatile variable without also reading it.

Lawrence Crowl:

For x=y=0, lvalue semantics implies an lvalue to rvalue conversion on the result of y=0, which in turn implies a read. If y is volatile, lvalue semantics implies both a read and a write on y.

The standard apparently doesn't state whether there is a value dependence of the lvalue result on the completion of the assignment. Such a statement in the standard would solve the non-volatile C compatibility issue, and would be consistent with a user-implemented operator=.

Another possible approach is to state that primitive assignment operators have two results, an lvalue and a corresponding "after-store" rvalue. The rvalue result would be used when an rvalue is required, while the lvalue result would be used when an lvalue is required. However, this semantics is unsupportable for user-defined assignment operators, or at least inconsistent with all implementations that I know of. I would not enjoy trying to write such two-faced semantics.

Erwin Unruh:

The intent was for assignments to behave the same as in C. Unfortunately the change of the result to lvalue did not keep that. An "lvalue of type int" has no "int" value! So there is a difference between intent and the standard's wording.

So we have one of several choices:

• live with the incompatibility (and the problems it has for volatile variables)
• make the result of assignment an rvalue (only builtin-assignment, maybe only for builtin types), which makes some presently valid programs invalid
• introduce "two-face semantics" for builtin assignments, and clarify the sequence problematics
• make a special rule for assignment to a volatile lvalue of builtin type

I think the last one has the least impact on existing programs, but it is an ugly solution.

Andrew Koenig:

Whatever we may have intended, I do not think that there is any clean way of making

    volatile int v;
    int i;

    i = v = 42;

Indeed, if v is volatile, I cannot imagine a conscientious programmer writing a statement such as this one. Instead, I would expect to see

    v = 42;
    i = v;

    v = 42;
    i = 42;

What I do want is to ensure that expressions such as ``i = v = 42'' have well-defined semantics, as well as expressions such as (i = v) = 42 or, more realistically, (i += v) += 42 .

I wonder if the following resolution is sufficient:

Append to 5.17 [expr.ass] paragraph 1:

There is a sequence point between assigning the new value to the left operand and yielding the result of the assignment expression.

I believe that this proposal achieves my desired effect of not constraining when j is incremented in x[j++] = y, because I don't think there is a constraint on the relative order of incrementing j and executing the assignment. However, I do think it allows expressions such as (i += v) += 42, although with different semantics from C if v is volatile.

Notes on 10/01 meeting:

There was agreement that adding a sequence point is probably the right solution.

Notes from the 4/02 meeting:

The working group reaffirmed the sequence-point solution, but we will look for any counter-examples where efficiency would be harmed.

For drafting, we note that ++x is defined in 5.3.2 [expr.pre.incr] as equivalent to x+=1 and is therefore affected by this change. x++ is not affected. Also, we should update any list of all sequence points.

Notes from October 2004 meeting:

Discussion centered around whether a sequence point “between assigning the new value to the left operand and yielding the result of the expression” would require completion of all side effects of the operand expressions before the value of the assignment expression was used in another expression. The consensus opinion was that it would, that this is the definition of a sequence point. Jason Merrill pointed out that adding a sequence point after the assignment is essentially the same as rewriting

    b += a

as

    b += a, b

Clark Nelson expressed a desire for something like a “weak” sequence point that would force the assignment to occur but that would leave the side effects of the operands unconstrained. In support of this position, he cited the following expression:

    j = (i = j++)

With the proposed addition of a full sequence point after the assignment to i, the net effect is no change to j. However, both g++ and MSVC++ behave differently: if the previous value of j is 5, the value of the expression is 5 but j gets the value 6.

Clark Nelson will investigate alternative approaches and report back to the working group.

Proposed resolution (March, 2008):

See issue 637.

351. Sequence point error: unspecified or undefined?

[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]

I have found what looks like a bug in clause 5 [expr], paragraph 4:

Between the previous and next sequence point a scalar object shall have its stored value modified at most once by the evaluation of an expression. Furthermore, the prior value shall be accessed only to determine the value to be stored. The requirements of this paragraph shall be met for each allowable ordering of the subexpressions of a full expression; otherwise the behavior is undefined. Example:

        i = v[i++];                     // the behavior is unspecified
        i = 7, i++, i++;                // i becomes 9

        i = ++i + 1;                    // the behavior is unspecified
        i = i + 1;                      // the value of i is incremented

--end example]

So which is it, unspecified or undefined?

Notes from October 2002 meeting:

We should find out what C99 says and do the same thing.

Proposed resolution (April 2003):

Change the example in clause 5 [expr], paragraph 4 from

[Example:

i = v[i++];                     //  the behavior is unspecified
i = 7, i++, i++;                //   i  becomes  9

i = ++i + 1;                    //  the behavior is unspecified
i = i + 1;                      //  the value of  i  is incremented

--- end example]

to (changing "unspecified" to "undefined" twice)

[Example:

i = v[i++];                     //  the behavior is undefined
i = 7, i++, i++;                //   i  becomes  9

i = ++i + 1;                    //  the behavior is undefined
i = i + 1;                      //  the value of  i  is incremented

--- end example]

451. Expressions with invalid results and ill-formedness

[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]

Clause 5 [expr] par. 5 of the standard says:

If during the evaluation of an expression, the result is not mathematically defined or not in the range of representable values for its type, the behavior is undefined, unless such an expression is a constant expression (5.19), in which case the program is ill-formed.

Well, we do know that except in some contexts (e.g. controlling expression of a #if, array bounds), a compiler is not required to evaluate constant-expressions in compile time, right?

Now, let us consider, the following simple snippet:

  if (a && 1/0)
      ...

I think the intent is actually the latter, so I propose the following rewording of the quoted section:

If an expression is evaluated but its result is not mathematically defined or not in the range of representable values for its type the behavior is undefined, unless such an expression is a constant expression (5.19) that shall be evaluated during program translation, in which case the program is ill-formed.

Rationale (March, 2004):

We feel the standard is clear enough. The quoted sentence does begin "If during the evaluation of an expression, ..." so the rest of the sentence does not apply to an expression that is not evaluated.

Note (September, 2004):

Gennaro Prota feels that the CWG missed the point of his original comment: unless a constant expression appears in a context that requires a constant expression, an implementation is permitted to defer its evaluation to runtime. An evaluation that fails at runtime cannot affect the well-formedness of the program; only expressions that are evaluated at compile time can make a program ill-formed.

The status has been reset to “open” to allow further discussion.

Proposed resolution (October, 2004):

Change paragraph 5 of 5 [expr] as indicated:

If during the evaluation of an expression, the result is not mathematically defined or not in the range of representable values for its type, the behavior is undefined, unless such an expression is a constant expression appears where an integral constant expression is required (5.19 [expr.const]), in which case the program is ill-formed.

122. template-ids as unqualified-ids

[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]

5.1.1 [expr.prim.general] paragraph 11 reads,

A template-id shall be used as an unqualified-id only as specified in 14.7.2 [temp.explicit] , 14.7 [temp.spec] , and 14.5.5 [temp.class.spec] .

What uses of template-ids as unqualified-ids is this supposed to prevent? And is the list of referenced sections correct/complete? For instance, what about 14.8.1 [temp.arg.explicit], "Explicit template argument specification?" Does its absence from the list in 5.1.1 [expr.prim.general] paragraph 11 mean that "f<int>()" is ill-formed?

This is even more confusing when you recall that unqualified-ids are contained in qualified-ids:

qualified-id: ::_opt nested-name-specifier template_opt unqualified-id

Is the wording intending to say "used as an unqualified-id that is not part of a qualified-id?" Or something else?

Proposed resolution (10/00):

Remove the referenced sentence altogether.

125. Ambiguity in friend declaration syntax

[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]

The example below is ambiguous.

    struct A{
      struct B{};
    };

    A::B C();

    namespace B{
      A C();
    }

    struct Test {
      friend A::B ::C();
    };

The ambiguity arises since both the simple-type-specifier (7.1.6.2 [dcl.type.simple] paragra 1) and an init-declararator (8 [dcl.decl] paragraph 1) contain an optional :: and an optional nested-name-specifier (5.1.1 [expr.prim.general] paragraph 1). Therefore, two different ways to analyse this code are possible:

simple-type-specifier = A::B
init-declarator = ::C()
simple-declaration = friend A::B ::C();

simple-type-specifier = A
init-declarator = ::B::C()
simple-declaration = friend A ::B::C();

Suggested Resolution: In the definition of nested-name-specifier, add a sentence saying that a :: token immediately following a nested-name-specifier is always considered as part of the nested-name-specifier. Under this interpretation, the example is ill-formed, and should be corrected as either

    friend A (::B::C)();   //or
    friend A::B (::C)();

An alternate suggestion — changing 7.1 [dcl.spec] to say that

The longest sequence of tokens that could possibly be a type name is taken as the decl-specifier-seq of a declaration.

— is undesirable because it would make the example well-formed rather than requiring the user to disambiguate the declaration explicitly.

Proposed resolution (04/01):

(See below for problem with this, from 10/01 meeting.)

In 5.1.1 [expr.prim.general] paragraph 7,

1. Before the grammar for qualified-id, start a new paragraph 7a with the text

   A qualified-id is an id-expression that contains the scope resolution operator ::.

2. Following the grammar fragment, insert the following:

   The longest sequence of tokens that could form a qualified-id constitutes a single qualified-id. [Example:

       // classes C, D; functions F, G, namespace N; non-class type T
       friend C ::D::F();   // ill-formed, means friend (C::D::F)();
       friend C (::D::F)(); // well-formed
       friend N::T ::G();   // ill-formed, means friend (N::T::G)();
       friend N::T (::G)(); // well-formed
   

   —end example]

3. Start a new paragraph 7b following the example.

(This resolution depends on that of issue 215.)

Notes from 10/01 meeting:

It was pointed out that the proposed resolution does not deal with cases like X::Y where X is a type but not a class type. The working group reaffirmed its decision that the disambiguation should be syntactic only, i.e., it should depend only on whether or not the name is a type.

At the Seattle meeting, I suggested that a solution might be to change the class-or-namespace-name in the nested-name-specifier rule to just be "identifier"; there was some resistance to this idea. FWIW, I've tried this in g++. I had to revise the idea so that only the second and subsequent names were open to being any identifier, but that seems to work just fine.

So, instead of

nested-name-specifier:
class-or-namespace-name :: nested-name-specifier_opt
class-or-namespace-name :: template nested-name-specifier

it would be

nested-name-specifier:
type-or-namespace-name :: (per issue 215)
nested-name-specifier identifier ::
nested-name-specifier template template-id ::

Or some equivalent but right-associative formulation, if people feel that's important, but it seems irrelevant to me.

Clark Nelson :

Personally, I prefer the left-associative rule. I think it makes it easier to understand. I was thinking about this production a lot at the meeting, considering also some issues related to 301. My formulation was getting kind of ugly, but with a left-associative rule, it gets a lot nicer.

Your proposal isn't complete, however, as it doesn't allow template arguments without an explicit template keyword. You probably want to add an alternative for:

nested-name-specifier type-or-namespace-name ::

There is admittedly overlap between this alternative and

nested-name-specifier identifier ::

but I think they're both necessary.

Notes from the 4/02 meeting:

The changes look good. Clark Nelson will merge the two proposals to produce a single proposed resolution.

Proposed resolution (April 2003):

nested-name-specifier is currently defined in 5.1.1 [expr.prim.general] paragraph 7 as:

nested-name-specifier:
class-or-namespace-name :: nested-name-specifier_opt
class-or-namespace-name :: template nested-name-specifier
class-or-namespace-name:
class-name
namespace-name

The proposed definition is instead:

nested-name-specifier:
type-name ::
namespace-name ::
nested-name-specifier identifier ::
nested-name-specifier template_opt template-id ::

Issue 215 is addressed by using type-name instead of class-name in the first alternative. Issue 125 (this issue) is addressed by using identifier instead of anything more specific in the third alternative. Using left association instead of right association helps eliminate the need for class-or-namespace-name (or type-or-namespace-name, as suggested for issue 215).

It should be noted that this formulation also rules out the possibility of A::template B::, i.e. using the template keyword without any template arguments. I think this is according to the purpose of the template keyword, and that the former rule allowed such a construct only because of the difficulty of formulation of a right-associative rule that would disallow it. But I wanted to be sure to point out this implication.

Notes from April 2003 meeting:

See also issue 96.

The proposed change resolves only part of issue 215.

113. Visibility of called function

[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]

Christophe de Dinechin: In 5.2.2 [expr.call] , paragraph 2 reads:

If no declaration of the called function is visible from the scope of the call the program is ill-formed.

Mike Miller: "The called function" is unfortunate phraseology; it makes it sound as if it's referring to the function actually called, as opposed to the identifier in the postfix expression. It's wrong with respect to Koenig lookup, too (the declaration need not be visible if it can be found in a class or namespace associated with one or more of the arguments).

In fact, this paragraph should be a note. There's a general rule that says you have to find an unambiguous declaration of any name that is used (3.4 [basic.lookup] paragraph 1); the only reason this paragraph is here is to contrast with C's implicit declaration of called functions.

Proposed resolution:

If no declaration of the called function is visible from the scope of the call the program is ill-formed.

[Note: if a function or member function name is used, and name lookup (3.4 [basic.lookup]) does not find a declaration of that name, the program is ill-formed. No function is implicitly declared by such a call. ]

(See also issue 218.)

118. Calls via pointers to virtual member functions

[Voted into the WP at the June, 2008 meeting.]

Martin O'Riordan: Having gone through all the relevant references in the IS, it is not conclusive that a call via a pointer to a virtual member function is polymorphic at all, and could legitimately be interpreted as being static.

Consider 5.2.2 [expr.call] paragraph 1:

The function called in a member function call is normally selected according to the static type of the object expression (clause 10 [class.derived] ), but if that function is virtual and is not specified using a qualified-id then the function actually called will be the final overrider (10.3 [class.virtual] ) of the selected function in the dynamic type of the object expression.

Yet other references such as 5.5 [expr.mptr.oper] paragraph 4:

If the dynamic type of the object does not contain the member to which the pointer refers, the behavior is undefined.

If the result of .* or ->* is a function, then that result can be used only as the operand for the function call operator (). [Example:

        (ptr_to_obj->*ptr_to_mfct)(10);

calls the member function denoted by ptr_to_mfct for the object pointed to by ptr_to_obj. ]

Andy Sawyer: Assuming the resolution is what I've assumed it is for the last umpteen years (i.e. it does the polymorphic thing), then the follow on to that is "Should there also be a way of selecting the non-polymorphic behaviour"?

Mike Miller: It might be argued that the current wording of 5.2.2 [expr.call] paragraph 1 does give polymorphic behavior to simple calls via pointers to members. (There is no qualified-id in obj.*pmf, and the IS says that if the function is not specified using a qualified-id, the final overrider will be called.) However, it clearly says the wrong thing when the pointer-to-member itself is specified using a qualified-id (obj.*X::pmf).

Bill Gibbons: The phrase qualified-id in 5.2.2 [expr.call] paragraph 1 refers to the id-expression and not to the "pointer-to-member expression" earlier in the paragraph:

For a member function call, the postfix expression shall be an implicit (9.3.1 [class.mfct.non-static] , 9.4 [class.static] ) or explicit class member access (5.2.5 [expr.ref] ) whose id-expression is a function member name, or a pointer-to-member expression (5.5 [expr.mptr.oper] ) selecting a function member.

Mike Miller: To be clear, here's an example:

    struct S {
	virtual void f();
    };
    void (S::*pmf)();
    void g(S* sp) {
	sp->f();         // 1: polymorphic
	sp->S::f();      // 2: non-polymorphic
	(sp->S::f)();    // 3: non-polymorphic
	(sp->*pmf)();    // 4: polymorphic
	(sp->*&S::f)();  // 5: polymorphic
    }

Notes from October 2002 meeting:

This was moved back to open for lack of a champion. Martin O'Riordan is not expected to be attending meetings.

Proposed resolution (February, 2008):

1. Change 5.2.2 [expr.call] paragraph 1 as follows:

   ... For a member function call, the postfix expression shall be an implicit (9.3.1 [class.mfct.non-static], 9.4 [class.static]) or explicit class member access (5.2.5 [expr.ref]) whose id-expression is a function member name, or a pointer-to-member expression (5.5 [expr.mptr.oper]) selecting a function member. The first expression in the postfix expression is then called the object expression, and; the call is as a member of the object pointed to or referred to by the object expression (5.2.5 [expr.ref], 5.5 [expr.mptr.oper]). In the case of an implicit class member access, the implied object is the one pointed to by this. [Note: a member function call of the form f() is interpreted as (*this).f() (see 9.3.1 [class.mfct.non-static]). —end note] If a function or member function name is used, the name can be overloaded (clause 13 [over]), in which case the appropriate function shall be selected according to the rules in 13.3 [over.match]. The function called in a member function call is normally selected according to the static type of the object expression (clause 10 [class.derived]), but if that function is virtual and is not specified using a qualified-id then the function actually called will be the final overrider (10.3 [class.virtual]) of the selected function in the dynamic type of the object expression If the selected function is non-virtual, or if the id-expression in the class member access expression is a qualified-id, that function is called. Otherwise, its final overrider (10.3 [class.virtual]) in the dynamic type of the object expression is called. ...

2. Change 5.5 [expr.mptr.oper] paragraph 4 as follows:

   The first operand is called the object expression. If the dynamic type of the object expression does not contain the member to which the pointer refers, the behavior is undefined.

506. Conditionally-supported behavior for non-POD objects passed to ellipsis

[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]

The current wording of 5.2.2 [expr.call] paragraph 7 states:

When there is no parameter for a given argument, the argument is passed in such a way that the receiving function can obtain the value of the argument by invoking va_arg (18.10 [support.runtime]). The lvalue-to-rvalue (4.1 [conv.lval]), array-to-pointer (4.2 [conv.array]), and function-to-pointer (4.3 [conv.func]) standard conversions are performed on the argument expression. After these conversions, if the argument does not have arithmetic, enumeration, pointer, pointer to member, or class type, the program is ill-formed. If the argument has a non-POD class type (clause 9 [class]), the behavior is undefined.

Paper J16/04-0167=WG21 N1727 suggests that passing a non-POD object to ellipsis be ill-formed. In discussions at the Lillehammer meeting, however, the CWG felt that the newly-approved category of conditionally-supported behavior would be more appropriate.

Proposed resolution (October, 2005):

Change 5.2.2 [expr.call] paragraph 7 as indicated:

...After these conversions, if the argument does not have arithmetic, enumeration, pointer, pointer to member, or class type, the program is ill-formed. If the argument has a non-POD class type (clause 9), the behavior is undefined. Passing an argument of non-POD class type (clause 9) with no corresponding parameter is conditionally-supported, with implementation-defined semantics.

634. Conditionally-supported behavior for non-POD objects passed to ellipsis redux

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]

Issue 506 changed passing a non-POD class type to an ellipsis from undefined behavior to conditionally-supported behavior. As a result, an implementation could conceivably reject code like the following:

    struct two {char _[2];};

    template <class From, class To>
    struct is_convertible
    {
    private:
            static From f;

            template <class U> static char test(const U&);
            template <class U> static two test(...);
    public:
            static const bool value = sizeof(test<To>(f)) == 1;
    };

    struct A
    {
         A();
    };

    int main()
    {
         const bool b = is_convertible<A,int>::value;  // b == false
    }

This technique has become popular in template metaprogramming, and no non-POD object is actually passed at runtime. Concepts will eliminate much (perhaps not all) of the need for this kind of programming, but legacy code will persist.

Perhaps this technique should be officially supported by allowing implementations to reject passing a non-POD type to ellipsis only if it appears in a potentially-evaluated expression?

Notes from the July, 2007 meeting:

The CWG agreed with the suggestion to allow such calls in unevaluated contexts.

Proposed resolution (September, 2007):

Change 5.2.2 [expr.call] paragraph 7 as follows:

...Passing an a potentially-evaluated argument of non-trivial class type (clause 9 [class]) with no corresponding parameter is conditionally-supported, with implementation-defined semantics...

466. cv-qualifiers on pseudo-destructor type

[Voted into WP at April, 2006 meeting.]

5.2.4 [expr.pseudo] paragraph 2 says both:

The type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same as the object type.

The cv-unqualified versions of the object type and of the type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same type.

See also issues 305 and 399.

Proposed resolution (October, 2005):

Change 5.2.4 [expr.pseudo] paragraph 2 as follows:

The left-hand side of the dot operator shall be of scalar type. The left-hand side of the arrow operator shall be of pointer to scalar type. This scalar type is the object type. The type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same as the object type. The cv-unqualified versions of the object type and of the type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same type. 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. The cv-unqualified versions of the object type and of the type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same type.

421. Is rvalue.field an rvalue?

[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]

Consider

  typedef
    struct {
      int a;
    } A;

  A f(void)
  {
    A a;
    return a;
  }

  int main(void)
  {
    int* p = &f().a;   // #1
  }

Should #1 be rejected? The standard is currently silent.

Mike Miller: I don't believe the Standard is silent on this. I will agree that the wording of 5.2.5 [expr.ref] paragraph 4 bullet 2 is unfortunate, as it is subject to misinterpretation. It reads,

If E1 is an lvalue, then E1.E2 is an lvalue.

Notes from October 2003 meeting:

We agree the reference should be an rvalue, and a change along the lines of that recommended by Mike Miller is reasonable.

Proposed Resolution (October 2003):

Change the second bullet of 5.2.5 [expr.ref] paragraph 4 to read:

If E1 is an lvalue, then E1.E2 is an lvalue; otherwise, it is an rvalue.

492. typeid constness inconsistent with example

[Voted into WP at April, 2006 meeting.]

There is an inconsistency between the normative text in section 5.2.8 [expr.typeid] and the example that follows.

Here is the relevant passage (starting with paragraph 4):

When typeid is applied to a type-id, the result refers to a std::type_info object representing the type of the type-id. If the type of the type-id is a reference type, the result of the typeid expression refers to a std::type_info object representing the referenced type.

The top-level cv-qualifiers of the lvalue expression or the type-id that is the operand of typeid are always ignored.

and the example:

    typeid(D) == typeid(const D&); // yields true

The second paragraph above says the “type-id that is the operand”. This would be const D&. In this case, the const is not at the top-level (i.e., applied to the operand itself).

By a strict reading, the above should yield false.

My proposal is that the strict reading of the normative test is correct. The example is wrong. Different compilers here give different answers.

Proposed resolution (April, 2005):

Change the second sentence of 5.2.8 [expr.typeid] paragraph 4 as follows:

If the type of the type-id is a reference to a possibly cv-qualified type, the result of the typeid expression refers to a std::type_info object representing the cv-unqualified referenced type.

54. Static_cast from private base to derived class

[Voted into WP at October 2004 meeting.]

Is it okay to use a static_cast to cast from a private base class to a derived class? That depends on what the words "valid standard conversion" in paragraph 8 mean — do they mean the conversion exists, or that it would not get an error if it were done? I think the former was intended — and therefore a static_cast from a private base to a derived class would be allowed.

Rationale (04/99): A static_cast from a private base to a derived class is not allowed outside a member from the derived class, because 4.10 [conv.ptr] paragraph 3 implies that the conversion is not valid. (Classic style casts work.)

Reopened September 2003:

Steve Adamczyk: It makes some sense to disallow the inverse conversion that is pointer-to-member of derived to pointer-to-member of private base. There's less justification for the pointer-to-private-base to pointer-to-derived case. EDG, g++ 3.2, and MSVC++ 7.1 allow the pointer case and disallow the pointer-to-member case. Sun disallows the pointer case as well.

  struct B {};
  struct D : private B {};
  int main() {
    B *p = 0;
    static_cast<D *>(p);  // Pointer case: should be allowed
    int D::*pm = 0;
    static_cast<int B::*>(pm);  // Pointer-to-member case: should get error
  }

There's a tricky case with old-style casts: because the static_cast interpretation is tried first, you want a case like the above to be considered a static_cast, but then issue an error, not be rejected as not a static cast; if you did the latter, you would then try the cast as a reinterpret_cast.

Ambiguity and casting to a virtual base should likewise be errors after the static_cast interpretation is selected.

Notes from the October 2003 meeting:

There was lots of sentiment for making things symmetrical: the pointer case should be the same as the pointer-to-member case. g++ 3.3 now issues errors on both cases.

We decided an error should be issued on both cases. The access part of the check should be done later; by some definition of the word the static_cast is valid, and then later an access error is issued. This is similar to the way standard conversions work.

Proposed Resolution (October 2003):

Replace paragraph 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast]/6:

The inverse of any standard conversion sequence (clause 4 [conv]), other than the lvalue-to-rvalue (4.1 [conv.lval]), array-to-pointer (4.2 [conv.array]), function-to-pointer (4.3 [conv.func]), and boolean (4.12 [conv.bool]) conversions, can be performed explicitly using static_cast. The lvalue-to-rvalue (4.1 [conv.lval]), array-to-pointer (4.2 [conv.array]), and function-to-pointer (4.3 [conv.func]) conversions are applied to the operand. Such a static_cast is subject to the restriction that the explicit conversion does not cast away constness (5.2.11 [expr.const.cast]), and the following additional rules for specific cases:

with two paragraphs:

The inverse of any standard conversion sequence (clause 4 [conv]), other than the lvalue-to-rvalue (4.1 [conv.lval]), array-to-pointer (4.2 [conv.array]), function-to-pointer (4.3 [conv.func]), and boolean (4.12 [conv.bool]) conversions, can be performed explicitly using static_cast. A program is ill-formed if it uses static_cast to perform the inverse of an ill-formed standard conversion sequence.[Example:

struct B {};
struct D : private B {};
void f() {
  static_cast<D*>((B*)0); // Error: B is a private base of D.
  static_cast<int B::*>((int D::*)0); // Error: B is a private base of D.
}

--- end example]

The lvalue-to-rvalue (4.1 [conv.lval]), array-to-pointer (4.2 [conv.array]), and function-to-pointer (4.3 [conv.func]) conversions are applied to the operand. Such a static_cast is subject to the restriction that the explicit conversion does not cast away constness (5.2.11 [expr.const.cast]), and the following additional rules for specific cases:

In addition, modify the second sentence of 5.4 [expr.cast]/5. The first two sentences of 5.4 [expr.cast]/5 presently read:

The conversions performed by

• a const_cast (5.2.11),
• a static_cast (5.2.9),
• a static_cast followed by a const_cast,
• a reinterpret_cast (5.2.10), or
• a reinterpret_cast followed by a const_cast,

can be performed using the cast notation of explicit type conversion. The same semantic restrictions and behaviors apply.

Change the second sentence to read:

The same semantic restrictions and behaviors apply, with the exception that in performing a static_cast in the following situations the conversion is valid even if the base class is inaccessible:

• a pointer to an object of derived class type or an lvalue of derived class type may be explicitly converted to a pointer or reference to an unambiguous base class type, respectively;
• a pointer to member of derived class type may be explicitly converted to a pointer to member of an unambiguous non-virtual base class type;
• a pointer to an object of an unambiguous non-virtual base class type, an lvalue of an unambiguous non-virtual base class type, or a pointer to member of an unambiguous non-virtual base class type may be explicitly converted to a pointer, a reference, or a pointer to member of a derived class type, respectively.

Remove paragraph 5.4 [expr.cast]/7, which presently reads:

In addition to those conversions, the following static_cast and reinterpret_cast operations (optionally followed by a const_cast operation) may be performed using the cast notation of explicit type conversion, even if the base class type is not accessible:

• a pointer to an object of derived class type or an lvalue of derived class type may be explicitly converted to a pointer or reference to an unambiguous base class type, respectively;
• a pointer to member of derived class type may be explicitly converted to a pointer to member of an unambiguous non-virtual base class type;
• a pointer to an object of non-virtual base class type, an lvalue of non-virtual base class type, or a pointer to member of non-virtual base class type may be explicitly converted to a pointer, a reference, or a pointer to member of a derived class type, respectively.

427. static_cast ambiguity: conversion versus cast to derived

[Voted into WP at October 2004 meeting.]

Consider this code:

  struct B {};

  struct D : public B { 
    D(const B&);
  };

  extern B& b;

  void f() {
    static_cast<const D&>(b);
  }

The rules for static_cast permit the conversion to "const D&" in two ways:

1. D is derived from B, and b is an lvalue, so a cast to D& is OK.
2. const D& t = b is valid, using the constructor for D. [Ed. note: actually, this should be parenthesized initialization.]

The first alternative is 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast]/5; the second is 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast]/2.

Presumably the first alternative is better -- it's the "simpler" conversion. The standard does not seem to make that clear.

Steve Adamczyk: I take the "Otherwise" at the beginning of 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast]/3 as meaning that the paragraph 2 interpretation is used if available, which means in your example above interpretation 2 would be used. However, that's not what EDG's compiler does, and I agree that it's not the "simpler" conversion.

Proposed Resolution (October 2003):

Move paragraph 5.2.9/5:

An lvalue of type ``cv1 B'', where B is a class type, can be cast to type ``reference to cv2 D'', where D is a class derived (clause 10 [class.derived]) from B, if a valid standard conversion from ``pointer to D'' to ``pointer to B'' exists (4.10 [conv.ptr]), cv2 is the same cv-qualification as, or greater cv-qualification than, cv1, and B is not a virtual base class of D. The result is an lvalue of type ``cv2 D.'' If the lvalue of type ``cv1 B'' is actually a sub-object of an object of type D, the lvalue refers to the enclosing object of type D. Otherwise, the result of the cast is undefined. [Example:

  struct B {};
  struct D : public B {};
  D d;
  B &br = d;

  static_cast<D&>(br);            //  produces lvalue to the original  d  object

--- end example]

before paragraph 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast]/2.

Insert Otherwise, before the text of paragraph 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast]/2 (which will become 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast]/3 after the above insertion), so that it reads:

Otherwise, an expression e can be explicitly converted to a type T using a static_cast of the form static_cast<T>(e) if the declaration "T t(e);" is well-formed, for some invented temporary variable t (8.5 [dcl.init]). The effect of such an explicit conversion is the same as performing the declaration and initialization and then using the temporary variable as the result of the conversion. The result is an lvalue if T is a reference type (8.3.2 [dcl.ref]), and an rvalue otherwise. The expression e is used as an lvalue if and only if the initialization uses it as an lvalue.

439. Guarantees on casting pointer back to cv-qualified version of original type

[Voted into WP at April 2005 meeting.]

Paragraph 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast] paragraph 10 says that:

A value of type pointer to object converted to "pointer to cv void" and back to the original pointer type will have its original value.

That guarantee should be stronger. In particular, given:

  T* p1 = new T;
  const T* p2 = static_cast<const T*>(static_cast<void *>(p1));
  if (p1 != p2)
    abort ();

A value of type pointer to object converted to "pointer to cv void" and back to the original pointer type (or a variant of the original pointer type that differs only in the cv-qualifiers applied to the object type) will have its original value. [Example:

T* p1 = new T;
const T* p2 = static_cast<const T*>(static_cast<void *>(p1));
bool b = p1 == p2; // b will have the value true.

---end example.]

Proposed resolution:

Change 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast] paragraph 10 as indicated:

A value of type pointer to object converted to "pointer to cv void" and back to the original pointer type, possibly with different cv-qualification, will have its original value. [Example:

  T* p1 = new T;
  const T* p2 = static_cast<const T*>(static_cast<void *>(p1));
  bool b = p1 == p2; // b will have the value true.

---end example]

Rationale: The wording "possibly with different cv-qualification" was chosen over the suggested wording to allow for changes in cv-qualification at different levels in a multi-level pointer, rather than only at the object type level.

671. Explicit conversion from a scoped enumeration type to integral type

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]

There appears to be no provision in the Standard for explicit conversion of a value of a scoped enumeration type to an integral type, even though the inverse conversion is permitted. That is,

    enum class E { e };
    static_cast<E>(0);       // #1: OK
    static_cast<int>(E::e);  // #2: error

This is because values of scope enumeration types (intentionally) cannot be implicitly converted to integral types (4.5 [conv.prom] and 4.7 [conv.integral]) and 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast] was not updated to permit #2, although #1 is covered by paragraph 8.

Proposed resolution (June, 2008):

Add the following as a new paragraph following 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast] paragraph 8:

A value of a scoped enumeration type (7.2 [dcl.enum]) can be explicitly converted to an integral type. The value is unchanged if the original value can be represented by the specified type. Otherwise, the resulting value is unspecified.

195. Converting between function and object pointers

[Voted into WP at April 2005 meeting.]

It is currently not permitted to cast directly between a pointer to function type and a pointer to object type. This conversion is not listed in 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast] and 5.2.10 [expr.reinterpret.cast] and thus requires a diagnostic to be issued. However, if a sufficiently long integral type exists (as is the case in many implementations), it is permitted to cast between pointer to function types and pointer to object types using that integral type as an intermediary.

In C the cast results in undefined behavior and thus does not require a diagnostic, and Unix C compilers generally do not issue one. This fact is used in the definition of the standard Unix function dlsym, which is declared to return void* but in fact may return either a pointer to a function or a pointer to an object. The fact that C++ compilers are required to issue a diagnostic is viewed as a "competitive disadvantage" for the language.

Suggested resolution: Add wording to 5.2.10 [expr.reinterpret.cast] allowing conversions between pointer to function and pointer to object types, if the implementation has an integral data type that can be used as an intermediary.

Several points were raised in opposition to this suggestion:

1. Early C++ supported this conversion and it was deliberately removed during the standardization process.
2. The existence of an appropriate integral type is irrelevant to whether the conversion is "safe." The condition should be on whether information is lost in the conversion or not.
3. There are numerous ways to address the problem at an implementation level rather than changing the language. For example, the compiler could recognize the specific case of dlsym and omit the diagnostic, or the C++ binding to dlsym could be changed (using templates, for instance) to circumvent the violation.
4. The conversion is, in fact, not supported by C; the dlsym function is simply relying on non-mandated characteristics of C implementations, and we would be going beyond the requirements of C compatibility in requiring (some) implementations to support the conversion.
5. This issue is in fact not a defect (omitted or self-contradictory requirements) in the current Standard; the proposed change would actually be an extension and should not be considered until the full review of the IS.
6. dlsym appears not to be used very widely, and the declaration in the header file is not problematic, only calls to it. Since C code generally requires some porting to be valid C++ anyway, this should be considered one of those items that requires porting.

Martin O'Riordan suggested an alternative approach:

• Do not allow the conversions to be performed via old-style casts.
• Allow reinterpret_cast to perform the conversions with the C-style semantics (undefined behavior if not supported).
• Allow dynamic_cast to perform the conversions with well-defined behavior: the result would be a null pointer if the implementation could not support the requested conversion.

The advantage of this approach is that it would permit writing portable, well-defined programs involving such conversions. However, it breaks the current degree of compatibility between old and new casts, and it adds functionality to dynamic_cast which is not obviously related to its current meaning.

Notes from 04/00 meeting:

Andrew Koenig suggested yet another approach: specify that "no diagnostic is required" if the implementation supports the conversion.

Later note:

It was observed that conversion between function and data pointers is listed as a "common extension" in C99.

Notes on the 10/01 meeting:

It was decided that we want the conversion defined in such a way that it always exists but is always undefined (as opposed to existing only when the size relationship is appropriate, and being implementation-defined in that case). This would allow an implementation to issue an error at compile time if the conversion does not make sense.

Bill Gibbons notes that the definitions of the other similar casts are inconsistent in this regard. Perhaps they should be updated as well.

Proposed resolution (April 2003):

After 5.2.10 [expr.reinterpret.cast] paragraph 6, insert:

A pointer to a function can be explicitly converted to a pointer to a function of a different type. The effect of calling a function through a pointer to a function type (8.3.5 [dcl.fct]) that is not the same as the type used in the definition of the function is undefined. Except that converting an rvalue of type ``pointer to T1'' to the type ``pointer to T2'' (where T1 and T2 are function types) and back to its original type yields the original pointer value, the result of such a pointer conversion is unspecified. [Note: see also 4.10 [conv.ptr] for more details of pointer conversions. ] It is implementation defined whether a conversion from pointer to object to pointer to function and/or a conversion from pointer to function to pointer to object exist.

An lvalue expression of type T1 can be cast to the type ``reference to T2'' if T1 and T2 are object types and an expression of type ``pointer to T1'' can be explicitly converted to the type ``pointer to T2'' using a reinterpret_cast. That is, a reference cast reinterpret_cast< T& >(x) has the same effect as the conversion *reinterpret_cast< T* >(&x) with the built-in & and * operators. The result is an lvalue that refers to the same object as the source lvalue, but with a different type. No temporary is created, no copy is made, and constructors (12.1 [class.ctor]) or conversion functions (12.3 [class.conv]) are not called.

Drafting Note:

If either conversion exists, the implementation already has to define the behavior (paragraph 3).

Notes from April 2003 meeting:

The new consensus is that if the implementation allows this cast, pointer-to-function converted to pointer-to-object converted back to the original pointer-to-function should work; anything else is undefined behavior. If the implementation does not allow the cast, it should be ill-formed.

Tom Plum is investigating a new concept, that of a "conditionally-defined" feature, which may be applicable here.

Proposed Resolution (October, 2004):

(See paper J16/04-0067 = WG21 N1627 for background material and rationale for this resolution. The resolution proposed here differs only editorially from the one in the paper.)

1. Insert the following into 1.3 [intro.defs] and renumber all following definitions accordingly:

   1.3.2  conditionally-supported behavior

   behavior evoked by a program construct that is not a mandatory requirement of this International Standard. If a given implementation supports the construct, the behavior shall be as described herein; otherwise, the implementation shall document that the construct is not supported and shall treat a program containing an occurrence of the construct as ill-formed (1.3 [intro.defs]).

2. Add the indicated words to 1.4 [intro.compliance] paragraph 2, bullet 2:

   • If a program contains a violation of any diagnosable rule, or an occurrence of a construct described herein as “conditionally-supported” or as resulting in “conditionally-supported behavior” when the implementation does not in fact support that construct, a conforming implementation shall issue at least one diagnostic message, except that

3. Insert the following as a new paragraph following 5.2.10 [expr.reinterpret.cast] paragraph 7:

   Converting a pointer to a function to a pointer to an object type or vice versa evokes conditionally-supported behavior. In any such conversion supported by an implementation, converting from an rvalue of one type to the other and back (possibly with different cv-qualification) shall yield the original pointer value; mappings between pointers to functions and pointers to objects are otherwise implementation-defined.

4. Change 7.4 [dcl.asm] paragraph 1 as indicated:

   The meaning of an An asm declaration evokes conditionally-supported behavior. If supported, its meaning is implementation-defined.

5. Change 7.5 [dcl.link] paragraph 2 as indicated:

   The string-literal indicates the required language linkage. The meaning of the string-literal is implementation-defined. A linkage-specification with a string that is unknown to the implementation is ill-formed. This International Standard specifies the semantics of C and C++ language linkage. Other values of the string-literal evoke conditionally-supported behavior, with implementation-defined semantics. [Note: Therefore, a linkage-specification with a string-literal that is unknown to the implementation requires a diagnostic. When the string-literal in a linkage-specification names a programming language, the spelling of the programming language's name is implementation-defined. [Note: It is recommended that the spelling be taken from the document defining that language, for example Ada (not ADA) and Fortran or FORTRAN (depending on the vintage). The semantics of a language linkage other than C++ or C are implementation-defined. ]

6. Change 14 [temp] paragraph 4 as indicated:

   A template, a template explicit specialization (14.7.3 [temp.expl.spec]), or a class template partial specialization shall not have C linkage. If the linkage of one of these is something other than C or C++, the behavior is implementation-defined result is conditionally-supported behavior, with implementation-defined semantics.

463. reinterpret_cast<T*>(0)

[Voted into WP at April, 2006 meeting.]

Is reinterpret_cast<T*>(null_pointer_constant) guaranteed to yield the null pointer value of type T*?

I think a committee clarification is needed. Here's why: 5.2.10 [expr.reinterpret.cast] par. 8 talks of "null pointer value", not "null pointer constant", so it would seem that

  reinterpret_cast<T*>(0)

However a little note to 5.2.10 [expr.reinterpret.cast] par. 5 says:

Converting an integral constant expression (5.19) with value zero always yields a null pointer (4.10), but converting other expressions that happen to have value zero need not yield a null pointer.

SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: I think it would be better to drop the footnote #64 (and thus the special case for ICEs), for two reasons:

a) it's not normative anyway; so I doubt anyone is relying on the guarantee it hints at, unless that guarantee is given elsewhere in a normative part

b) users expect reinterpret_casts to be almost always implementation dependent, so this special case is a surprise. After all, if one wants a null pointer there's static_cast. And if one wants reinterpret_cast semantics the special case requires doing some explicit cheat, such as using a non-const variable as intermediary:

   int v = 0;
   reinterpret_cast<T*>(v); // implementation defined

   reinterpret_cast<T*>(0); // null pointer value of type T*
   const int w = 0;
   reinterpret_cast<T*>(w); // null pointer value of type T*

It seems that not only that's providing a duplicate functionality, but also at the cost to hide what seems the more natural one.

Notes from October 2004 meeting:

This footnote was added in 1996, after the invention of reinterpret_cast, so the presumption must be that it was intentional. At this time, however, the CWG feels that there is no reason to require that reinterpret_cast<T*>(0) produce a null pointer value as its result.

Proposed resolution (April, 2005):

1. Delete the footnote in 5.2.10 [expr.reinterpret.cast] paragraph 5 reading,

   Converting an integral constant expression (5.19 [expr.const]) with value zero always yields a null pointer (4.10 [conv.ptr]), but converting other expressions that happen to have value zero need not yield a null pointer.

2. Add the indicated note to 5.2.10 [expr.reinterpret.cast] paragraph 8:

   The null pointer value (4.10 [conv.ptr]) is converted to the null pointer value of the destination type. [Note: A null pointer constant, which has integral type, is not necessarily converted to a null pointer value. —end note]

324. Can "&" be applied to assignment to bit-field?

[Voted into WP at October 2003 meeting.]

An assignment returns an lvalue for its left operand. If that operand refers to a bit field, can the "&" operator be applied to the assignment? Can a reference be bound to it?

  struct S { int a:3; int b:3; int c:3; };

  void f()
  {
    struct S s;
    const int *p = &(s.b = 0);     // (a)
    const int &r = (s.b = 0);      // (b)
          int &r2 = (s.b = 0);     // (c)
  }

Notes from the 4/02 meeting:

The working group agreed that this should be an error.

Proposed resolution (October 2002):

In 5.3.2 [expr.pre.incr] paragraph 1 (prefix "++" and "--" operators), change

The value is the new value of the operand; it is an lvalue.

The result is the updated operand; it is an lvalue, and it is a bit-field if the operand is a bit-field.

In 5.16 [expr.cond] paragraph 4 ("?" operator), add the indicated text:

If the second and third operands are lvalues and have the same type, the result is of that type and is an lvalue and it is a bit-field if the second or the third operand is a bit-field, or if both are bit-fields.

In 5.17 [expr.ass] paragraph 1 (assignment operators) add the indicated text (the original text is as updated by issue 221, which is DR but not in TC1):

The assignment operator (=) and the compound assignment operators all group right-to-left. All require a modifiable lvalue as their left operand and return an lvalue with the type and value of the left operand after the assignment has taken place. The result in all cases is a bit-field if the left operand is a bit-field.

Note that issue 222 adds (non-conflicting) text at the end of this same paragraph (5.17 [expr.ass] paragraph 1).

In 5.18 [expr.comma] paragraph 1 (comma operator), change:

The type and value of the result are the type and value of the right operand; the result is an lvalue if its right operand is.

The type and value of the result are the type and value of the right operand; the result is an lvalue if the right operand is an lvalue, and is a bit-field if the right operand is an lvalue and a bit-field.

Relevant related text (no changes required):

5.3.1 [expr.unary.op] paragraph 4:

The operand of & shall not be a bit-field.

8.5.3 [dcl.init.ref] paragraph 5, bullet 1, sub-bullet 1 (regarding binding a reference to an lvalue):

... is an lvalue (but is not a bit-field) ...

256. Overflow in size calculations

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]

[Picked up by evolution group at October 2002 meeting.]

(See also issue 476.)

The size requested by an array allocation is computed by multiplying the number of elements requested by the size of each element and adding an implementation-specific amount for overhead. It is possible for this calculation to overflow. Is an implementation required to detect this situation and, for instance, throw std::bad_alloc?

On one hand, the maximum allocation size is one of the implementation limits specifically mentioned in Annex B [implimits], and, according to 1.4 [intro.compliance] paragraph 2, an implementation is only required to "accept and correctly execute" programs that do not violate its resource limits.

On the other hand, it is difficult or impossible for user code to detect such overflows in a portable fashion, especially given that the array allocation overhead is not fixed, and it would be a service to the user to handle this situation gracefully.

Rationale (04/01):

Each implementation is required to document the maximum size of an object (Annex B [implimits]). It is not difficult for a program to check array allocations to ensure that they are smaller than this quantity. Implementations can provide a mechanism in which users concerned with this problem can request extra checking before array allocations, just as some implementations provide checking for array index and pointer validity. However, it would not be appropriate to require this overhead for every array allocation in every program.

(See issue 624 for a request to reconsider this resolution.)

Note (March, 2008):

The Evolution Working Group has accepted the intent of this issue and referred it to CWG for action for C++0x (see paper J16/07-0033 = WG21 N2173).

Proposed resolution (September, 2008):

This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 624, given in paper N2757.

299. Conversion on array bound expression in new

[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]

In 5.3.4 [expr.new], the standard says that the expression in an array-new has to have integral type. There's already a DR (issue 74) that says it should also be allowed to have enumeration type. But, it should probably also say that it can have a class type with a single conversion to integral type; in other words the same thing as in 6.4.2 [stmt.switch] paragraph 2.

Suggested resolution:

In 5.3.4 [expr.new] paragraph 6, replace "integral or enumeration type (3.9.1 [basic.fundamental])" with "integral or enumeration type (3.9.1 [basic.fundamental]), or a class type for which a single conversion function to integral or enumeration type exists".

Proposed resolution (October, 2004):

Change 5.3.4 [expr.new] paragraph 6 as follows:

Every constant-expression in a direct-new-declarator shall be an integral constant expression (5.19 [expr.const]) and evaluate to a strictly positive value. The expression in a direct-new-declarator shall have be of integral type, or enumeration type (3.9.1), or a class type for which a single conversion function to integral or enumeration type exists (12.3 [class.conv]). If the expression is of class type, the expression is converted by calling the conversion function, and the result of the conversion is used in place of the original expression. The value of the expression shall bewith a non-negative value. [Example: ...

Proposed resolution (April, 2005):

Change 5.3.4 [expr.new] paragraph 6 as follows:

Every constant-expression in a direct-new-declarator shall be an integral constant expression (5.19 [expr.const]) and evaluate to a strictly positive value. The expression in a direct-new-declarator shall have integral or enumeration type (3.9.1 [basic.fundamental]) with a non-negative value be of integral type, enumeration type, or a class type for which a single conversion function to integral or enumeration type exists (12.3 [class.conv]). If the expression is of class type, the expression is converted by calling that conversion function, and the result of the conversion is used in place of the original expression. If the value of the expression is negative, the behavior is undefined. [Example: ...

429. Matching deallocation function chosen based on syntax or signature?

[Voted into WP at October 2004 meeting.]

What does this example do?

  #include <stdio.h>
  #include <stdlib.h>

  struct A {
        void* operator new(size_t alloc_size, size_t dummy=0) {
                printf("A::operator new()\n");
                return malloc(alloc_size);
        };

        void operator delete(void* p, size_t s) {
                printf("A::delete %d\n", s);
        };


        A()  {printf("A constructing\n"); throw 2;};

  };

  int
  main() {
    try {
        A* ap = new A;
        delete ap;
    }
    catch(int) {printf("caught\n"); return 1;}
  }  

The fundamental issue here is whether the deletion-on-throw is driven by the syntax of the new (placement or non-placement) or by signature matching. If the former, the operator delete would be called with the second argument equal to the size of the class. If the latter, it would be called with the second argument 0.

Core issue 127 (in TC1) dealt with this topic. It removed some wording in 15.2 [except.ctor] paragraph 2 that implied a syntax-based interpretation, leaving wording in 5.3.4 [expr.new] paragraph 19 that is signature-based. But there is no accompanying rationale to confirm an explicit choice of the signature-based approach.

EDG and g++ get 0 for the second argument, matching the presumed core issue 127 resolution. But maybe this should be revisited.

Notes from October 2003 meeting:

There was widespread agreement that the compiler shouldn't just silently call the delete with either of the possible values. In the end, we decided it's smarter to issue an error on this case and force the programmer to say what he means.

Mike Miller's analysis of the status quo: 3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation] paragraph 2 says that "operator delete(void*, std::size_t)" is a "usual (non-placement) deallocation function" if the class does not declare "operator delete(void*)." 3.7.4.1 [basic.stc.dynamic.allocation] does not use the same terminology for allocation functions, but the most reasonable way to understand the uses of the term "placement allocation function" in the Standard is as an allocation function that has more than one parameter and thus can (but need not) be called using the "new-placement" syntax described in 5.3.4 [expr.new]. (In considering issue 127, the core group discussed and endorsed the position that, "If a placement allocation function has default arguments for all its parameters except the first, it can be called using non-placement syntax.")

5.3.4 [expr.new] paragraph 19 says that any non-placement deallocation function matches a non-placement allocation function, and that a placement deallocation function matches a placement allocation function with the same parameter types after the first -- i.e., a non-placement deallocation function cannot match a placement allocation function. This makes sense, because non-placement ("usual") deallocation functions expect to free memory obtained from the system heap, which might not be the case for storage resulting from calling a placement allocation function.

According to this analysis, the example shows a placement allocation function and a non-placement deallocation function, so the deallocation function should not be invoked at all, and the memory will just leak.

Proposed Resolution (October 2003):

Add the following text at the end of 5.3.4 [expr.new] paragraph 19:

If the lookup finds the two-parameter form of a usual deallocation function (3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation]), and that function, considered as a placement deallocation function, would have been selected as a match for the allocation function, the program is ill-formed. [Example:

struct S { 
  // Placement allocation function:
  static void* operator new(std::size_t, std::size_t); 

  // Usual (non-placement) deallocation function:
  static void operator delete(void*, std::size_t); 
}; 

S* p = new (0) S; // ill-formed: non-placement deallocation function matches 
                  // placement allocation function 

--- end example]

624. Overflow in calculating size of allocation

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting (resolution in paper N2757).]

Issue 256 was closed without action, principally on the the grounds that an implementation could provide a means (command-line option, #pragma, etc.) for requesting that the allocation size be checked for validity, but that “it would not be appropriate to require this overhead for every array allocation in every program.”

This rationale may be giving too much weight to the overhead such a check would add, especially when compared to the likely cost of actually doing the storage allocation. In particular, the test essentially amounts to something like

    if (max_allocation_size / sizeof(T) < num_elements)
        throw std::bad_alloc();

(noting that max_allocation_size/sizeof(T) is a compile-time constant). It might make more sense to turn the rationale around and require the check, assuming that implementations could provide a mechanism for suppressing it if needed.

Suggested resolution:

In 5.3.4 [expr.new] paragraph 7, add the following words before the example:

If the value of the expression is such that the size of the allocated object would exceed the implementation-defined limit, an exception of type std::bad_alloc is thrown and no storage is obtained.

Note (March, 2008):

The Evolution Working Group has accepted the intent of issue 256 and referred it to CWG for action for C++0x (see paper J16/07-0033 = WG21 N2173).

Proposed resolution (March, 2008):

As suggested.

Notes from the June, 2008 meeting:

The CWG felt that this situation should not be treated like an out-of-memory situation and thus an exception of type std::bad_alloc (or, alternatively, returning a null pointer for a throw() allocator) would not be appropriate.

Proposed resolution (June, 2008):

Change 5.3.4 [expr.new] paragraph 8 as follows:

If the value of the expression in a direct-new-declarator is such that the size of the allocated object would exceed the implementation-defined limit, no storage is obtained and the new-expression terminates by throwing an exception of a type that would match a handler (15.3 [except.handle]) of type std::length_error (19.2.4 [length.error]). Otherwise, if When the value of the that expression in a direct-new-declarator is zero, the allocation function is called to allocate an array with no elements.

[Drafting note: std::length_error is thrown by std::string and std::vector and thus appears to be the right choice for the exception to be thrown here.]

288. Misuse of "static type" in describing pointers

[Voted into the WP at the June, 2008 meeting.]

For delete expressions, 5.3.5 [expr.delete] paragraph 1 says

The operand shall have a pointer type, or a class type having a single conversion function to a pointer type.

However, paragraph 3 of that same section says:

if the static type of the operand is different from its dynamic type, the static type shall be a base class of the operand's dynamic type and the static type shall have a virtual destructor or the behavior is undefined.

Since the operand must be of pointer type, its static type is necessarily the same as its dynamic type. That clause is clearly referring to the object being pointed at, and not to the pointer operand itself.

Correcting the wording gets a little complicated, because dynamic and static types are attributes of expressions, not objects, and there's no sub-expression of a delete-expression which has the relevant types.

Suggested resolution:

then there is a static type and a dynamic type that the hypothetical expression (* const-expression) would have. If that static type is different from that dynamic type, then that static type shall be a base class of that dynamic type, and that static type shall have a virtual destructor, or the behavior is undefined.

There's precedent for such use of hypothetical constructs: see 5.10 [expr.eq] paragraph 2, and 8.1 [dcl.name] paragraph 1.

10.3 [class.virtual] paragraph 3 has a similar problem. It refers to

the type of the pointer or reference denoting the object (the static type).

The type of the pointer is different from the type of the reference, both of which are different from the static type of '*pointer', which is what I think was actually intended. Paragraph 6 contains the exact same wording, in need of the same correction. In this case, perhaps replacing "pointer or reference" with "expression" would be the best fix. In order for this fix to be sufficient, pointer->member must be considered equivalent to (*pointer).member, in which case the "expression" referred to would be (*pointer).

if a delete-expression is used to deallocate a class object whose static type has...

This should be changed to

if a delete-expression is used to deallocate a class object through a pointer expression whose dereferenced static type would have...

The same problem occurs later, when it says that the

static and dynamic types of the object shall be identical

In this case you could replace "object" with "dereferenced pointer expression".

Footnote 104 says that

5.3.5 [expr.delete] requires that ... the static type of the delete-expression's operand be the same as its dynamic type.

This would need to be changed to

the delete-expression's dereferenced operand

Proposed resolution (December, 2006):

1. Change 5.3.5 [expr.delete] paragraph 3 as follows:

In the first alternative (delete object), if the static type of the operand object to be deleted is different from its dynamic type, the static type shall be a base class of the operand’s dynamic type of the object to be deleted and the static type shall have a virtual destructor or the behavior is undefined. In the second alternative (delete array) if the dynamic type of the object to be deleted differs from its static type, the behavior is undefined.

2. Change the footnote in 12.5 [class.free] paragraph 4 as follows:

A similar provision is not needed for the array version of operator delete because 5.3.5 [expr.delete] requires that in this situation, the static type of the delete-expression’s operand object to be deleted be the same as its dynamic type.

3. Change the footnote in 12.5 [class.free] paragraph 5 as follows:

If the static type in the delete-expression of the object to be deleted is different from the dynamic type and the destructor is not virtual the size might be incorrect, but that case is already undefined; see 5.3.5 [expr.delete].

[Drafting notes: No change is required for 10.3 [class.virtual] paragraph 7 because “the type of the pointer” includes the pointed-to type. No change is required for 12.5 [class.free] paragraph 4 because “...used to deallocate a class object whose static type...” already refers to the object (and not the operand expression).]

353. Is deallocation routine called if destructor throws exception in delete?

[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]

In a couple of comp.std.c++ threads, people have asked whether the Standard guarantees that the deallocation function will be called in a delete-expression if the destructor throws an exception. Most/all people have expressed the opinion that the deallocation function must be called in this case, although no one has been able to cite wording in the Standard supporting that view.

#include <new.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

static int flag = 0;

inline 
void operator delete(void* p) throw() 
{
   if (flag)
        printf("in deallocation function\n");
   free(p);
}

struct S {
    ~S() { throw 0; }
};

void f() {
    try {
        delete new S;
    }
    catch(...) { }
}

int main() {
       flag=1;
       f();
       flag=0;
       return 0;
}

Proposed resolution (October 2002):

Add to 5.3.5 [expr.delete] paragraph 7 the highlighted text:

The delete-expression will call a deallocation function (3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation]) [Note: The deallocation function is called regardless of whether the destructor for the object or some element of the array throws an exception. ]

442. Incorrect use of null pointer constant in description of delete operator

[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]

After some discussion in comp.lang.c++.moderated we came to the conclusion that there seems to be a defect in 5.3.5 [expr.delete]/4, which says:

The cast-expression in a delete-expression shall be evaluated exactly once. If the delete-expression calls the implementation deallocation function (3.7.3.2), and if the operand of the delete expression is not the null pointer constant, the deallocation function will deallocate the storage referenced by the pointer thus rendering the pointer invalid. [Note: the value of a pointer that refers to deallocated storage is indeterminate. ]

In the second sentence, the term "null pointer constant" should be changed to "null pointer". In its present form, the passage claims that the deallocation function will deallocate the storage refered to by a null pointer that did not come from a null pointer constant in the delete expression. Besides, how can the null pointer constant be the operand of a delete expression, as "delete 0" is an error because delete requires a pointer type or a class type having a single conversion function to a pointer type?

See also issue 348.

Proposed resolution:

Change the indicated sentence of 5.3.5 [expr.delete] paragraph 4 as follows:

If the delete-expression calls the implementation deallocation function (3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation]), and if the value of the operand of the delete expression is not the a null pointer constant, the deallocation function will deallocate the storage referenced by the pointer thus rendering the pointer invalid.

Notes from October 2004 meeting:

This wording is superseded by, and this issue will be resolved by, the resolution of issue 348.

Proposed resolution (April, 2005):

This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 348.

659. Alignment of function types

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]

The specification for the alignof operator (5.3.6 [expr.alignof]) does not forbid function types as operands, although it probably should.

Proposed resolution (March, 2008):

The issue, as described, is incorrect. The requirement in 5.3.6 [expr.alignof] is for “a complete object type,” so a function type is already forbidden. However, the existing text does have a problem in this requirement in that it does not allow a reference type, as anticipated by paragraph 3. Consequently, the proposal is to change 5.3.6 [expr.alignof] paragraph 1 as indicated:

An alignof expression yields the alignment requirement of its operand type. The operand shall be a type-id representing a complete object type or a reference to a complete object type.

520. Old-style casts between incomplete class types

[Voted into WP at April, 2007 meeting.]

5.4 [expr.cast] paragraph 6 says,

The operand of a cast using the cast notation can be an rvalue of type “pointer to incomplete class type”. The destination type of a cast using the cast notation can be “pointer to incomplete class type”. In such cases, even if there is a inheritance relationship between the source and destination classes, whether the static_cast or reinterpret_cast interpretation is used is unspecified.

The wording seems to allow the following:

1. casting from void pointer to incomplete type

    struct A;
    struct B;

    void *v;
    A *a = (A*)v; // allowed to choose reinterpret_cast

2. variant application of static or reinterpret casting

    B *b = (B*)a;    // compiler can choose static_cast here
    A *aa = (A*)b;   // compiler can choose reinterpret_cast here
    assert(aa == a); // might not hold

3. ability to somehow choose static_cast

It's not entirely clear how a compiler can choose static_cast as 5.4 [expr.cast] paragraph 6 seems to allow. I believe the intent of 5.4 [expr.cast] paragraph 6 is to force the use of reinterpret_cast when either are incomplete class types and static_cast iff the compiler knows both types and there is a non-ambiguous hierarchy-traversal between that cast (or maybe not, core issue 242 talks about this). I cannot see any other interpretation because it isn't intuitive, every compiler I've tried agrees with me, and neither standard pointer conversions (4.10 [conv.ptr] paragraph 3) nor static_cast (5.2.9 [expr.static.cast] paragraph 5) talk about incomplete class types. If the committee agrees with me, I would like to see 4.10 [conv.ptr] paragraph 3 and 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast] paragraph 5 explicitly disallow incomplete class types and the wording of 5.4 [expr.cast] paragraph 6 changed to not allow any other interpretation.

Proposed resolution (April, 2006):

Change 5.4 [expr.cast] paragraph 6 as indicated:

The operand of a cast using the cast notation can be an rvalue of type “pointer to incomplete class type.” The destination type of a cast using the cast notation can be “pointer to incomplete class type.” In such cases, even if there is a inheritance relationship between the source and destination classes, whether the static_cast or reinterpret_cast interpretation is used is unspecified. If both the operand and destination types are class types and one or both are incomplete, it is unspecified whether the static_cast or the reinterpret_cast interpretation is used, even if there is an inheritance relationship between the two classes. [Note: For example, if the classes were defined later in the translation unit, a multi-pass compiler would be permitted to interpret a cast between pointers to the classes as if the class types were complete at that point. —end note]

497. Missing required initialization in example

[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]

5.5 [expr.mptr.oper] paragraph 5 contains the following example:

    struct S {
        mutable int i;
    };
    const S cs;
    int S::* pm = &S::i;   // pm refers to mutable member S::i
    cs.*pm = 88;           // ill-formed: cs is a const object

The const object cs is not explicitly initialized, and class S does not have a user-declared default constructor. This makes the code ill-formed as per 8.5 [dcl.init] paragraph 9.

Proposed resolution (April, 2005):

Change the example in 5.5 [expr.mptr.oper] paragraph 5 to read as follows:

    struct S {
        S() : i(0) { }
        mutable int i;
    };
    void f()
    {
        const S cs;
        int S::* pm = &S::i;   // pm refers to mutable member S::i
        cs.*pm = 88;           // ill-formed: cs is a const object
    }

614. Results of integer / and %

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting as part of paper N2757.]

The current Standard leaves it implementation-defined whether integer division rounds the result toward 0 or toward negative infinity and thus whether the result of % may be negative. C99, apparently reflecting (nearly?) unanimous hardware practice, has adopted the rule that integer division rounds toward 0, thus requiring that the result of -1 % 5 be -1. Should the C++ Standard follow suit?

On a related note, does INT_MIN % -1 invoke undefined behavior? The % operator is defined in terms of the / operator, and INT_MIN / -1 overflows, which by 5 [expr] paragraph 5 causes undefined behavior; however, that is not the “result” of the % operation, so it's not clear. The wording of 5.6 [expr.mul] paragraph 4 appears to allow % to cause undefined behavior only when the second operand is 0.

Proposed resolution (August, 2008):

Change 5.6 [expr.mul] paragraph 4 as follows:

The binary / operator yields the quotient, and the binary % operator yields the remainder from the division of the first expression by the second. If the second operand of / or % is zero the behavior is undefined; otherwise (a/b)*b + a%b is equal to a. If both operands are nonnegative then the remainder is nonnegative; if not, the sign of the remainder is implementation-defined. [Footnote: According to work underway toward the revision of ISO C, the preferred algorithm for integer division follows the rules defined in the ISO Fortran standard, ISO/IEC 1539:1991, in which the quotient is always rounded toward zero. —end footnote]. For integral operands, the / operator yields the algebraic quotient with any fractional part discarded; [Footnote: This is often called “truncation towards zero.” —end footnote] if the quotient a/b is representable in the type of the result, (a/b)*b + a%b is equal to a.

[Drafting note: see C99 6.5.5 paragraph 6.]

661. Semantics of arithmetic comparisons

[Voted into the WP at the June, 2008 meeting.]

The actual semantics of arithmetic comparison — e.g., whether 1 < 2 yields true or false — appear not to be specified anywhere in the Standard. The C Standard has a general statement that

Each of the operators < (less than), > (greater than), <= (less than or equal to), and >= (greater than or equal to) shall yield 1 if the specified relation is true and 0 if it is false.

There is no corresponding statement in the C++ Standard.

Proposed resolution (February, 2008):

1. Append the following paragraph to the end of 5.9 [expr.rel]:

If both operands (after conversions) are of arithmetic type, each of the operators shall yield true if the specified relation is true and false if it is false.

2. Append the following paragraph to the end of 5.10 [expr.eq]:

Each of the operators shall yield true if the specified relation is true and false if it is false.

446. Does an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion on the "?" operator produce a temporary?

[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]

The problem occurs when the value of the operator is determined to be an rvalue, the selected argument is an lvalue, the type is a class type and a non-const member is invoked on the modifiable rvalue result.

    struct B {
        int v;
        B (int v) : v(v) { }
        void inc () { ++ v; }
        };
    struct D : B {
        D (int v) : B(v) { }
        };

    B b1(42);
    (0 ? B(13) : b1).inc();
    assert(b1.v == 42);

The types of the second and third operands are the same and one is an rvalue. Nothing changes until p6 where an lvalue to rvalue conversion is performed on the third operand. 12.2 [class.temporary] states that an lvalue to rvalue conversion produces a temporary and there is nothing to remove it. It seems clear that the assertion must pass, yet most implementations fail.

There seems to be a defect in p3 b2 b1. First, the conditions to get here and pass the test.

If E1 and E2 have class type, and the underlying class types are the same or one is a base class of the other: E1 can be converted to match E2 if the class of T2 is the same type as, or a base class of, the class of T1, and the cv-qualification of T2 is the same cv-qualification as, or a greater cv-qualification than, the cv-qualification of T1.

If both E1 and E2 are lvalues, passing the conditions here also passes the conditions for p3 b1. Thus, at least one is an rvalue. The case of two rvalues is not interesting and the action is covered by the case when E1 is an rvalue.

    (0 ? D(13) : b1).inc();
    assert(b1.v == 42);

E1 is changed to an rvalue of type T2 that still refers to the original source class object (or the appropriate subobject thereof). [Note: that is, no copy is made. ]

Having changed the rvalue to base type, we are back to the above case where an lvalue to rvalue conversion is required on the third operand at p6. Again, most implementations fail.

The remaining case, E1 an lvalue and E2 an rvalue, is the defect.

    D d1(42);
    (0 ? B(13) : d1).inc();
    assert(d1.v == 42);

The above quote states that an lvalue of type T1 is changed to an rvalue of type T2 without creating a temporary. This is in contradiction to everything else in the standard about lvalue to rvalue conversions. Most implementations pass in spite of the defect.

The usual accessible and unambiguous is missing from the base class.

There seems to be two possible solutions. Following other temporary creations would produce a temporary rvalue of type T1 and change it to an rvalue of type T2. Keeping the no copy aspect of this bullet intact would change the lvalue of type T1 to an lvalue of type T2. In this case the lvalue to rvalue conversion would happen in p6 as usual.

Suggested wording for p3 b2 b1

The base part:

If E1 and E2 have class type, and the underlying class types are the same or one is a base class of the other: E1 can be converted to match E2 if the class of T2 is the same type as, or an accessible and unambiguous base class of, the class of T1, and the cv-qualification of T2 is the same cv-qualification as, or a greater cv-qualification than, the cv-qualification of T1. If the conversion is applied:

The same type temporary version:

If E1 is an lvalue, an lvalue to rvalue conversion is applied. The resulting or original rvalue is changed to an rvalue of type T2 that refers to the same class object (or the appropriate subobject thereof). [Note: that is, no copy is made in changing the type of the rvalue. ]

The never copy version:

The lvalue(rvalue) E1 is changed to an lvalue(rvalue) of type T2 that refers to the original class object (or the appropriate subobject thereof). [Note: that is, no copy is made. ]

The test case was posted to clc++m and results for implementations were reported.

#include <cassert>
struct B {
    int v;
    B (int v) : v(v) { }
    void inc () { ++ v; }
    };
struct D : B {
    D (int v) : B(v) { }
    };
int main () {
    B b1(42);
    D d1(42);
    (0 ? B(13) : b1).inc();
    assert(b1.v == 42);
    (0 ? D(13) : b1).inc();
    assert(b1.v == 42);
    (0 ? B(13) : d1).inc();
    assert(d1.v == 42);
    }

// CbuilderX(EDG301) FFF  Rob Williscroft
// ICC-8.0           FFF  Alexander Stippler
// COMO-4.301        FFF  Alexander Stippler

// BCC-5.4           FFP  Rob Williscroft
// BCC32-5.5         FFP  John Potter
// BCC32-5.65        FFP  Rob Williscroft
// VC-6.0            FFP  Stephen Howe
// VC-7.0            FFP  Ben Hutchings
// VC-7.1            FFP  Stephen Howe
// OpenWatcom-1.1    FFP  Stephen Howe

// Sun C++-6.2       PFF  Ron Natalie

// GCC-3.2           PFP  John Potter
// GCC-3.3           PFP  Alexander Stippler

// GCC-2.95          PPP  Ben Hutchings
// GCC-3.4           PPP  Florian Weimer

I see no defect with regards to lvalue to rvalue conversions; however, there seems to be disagreement about what it means by implementers. It may not be surprising because 5.16 and passing a POD struct to an ellipsis are the only places where an lvalue to rvalue conversion applies to a class type. Most lvalue to rvalue conversions are on basic types as operands of builtin operators.

Notes from the March 2004 meeting:

We decided all "?" operators that return a class rvalue should copy the second or third operand to a temporary. See issue 86.

Proposed resolution (October 2004):

1. Change 5.16 [expr.cond] paragraph 3 bullet 2 sub-bullet 1 as follows:

   if E1 and E2 have class type, and the underlying class types are the same or one is a base class of the other: E1 can be converted to match E2 if the class of T2 is the same type as, or a base class of, the class of T1, and the cv-qualification of T2 is the same cv-qualification as, or a greater cv-qualification than, the cv-qualification of T1. If the conversion is applied, E1 is changed to an rvalue of type T2 that still refers to the original source class object (or the appropriate subobject thereof). [Note: that is, no copy is made. —end note] by copy-initializing a temporary of type T2 from E1 and using that temporary as the converted operand.

2. Change 5.16 [expr.cond] paragraph 6 bullet 1 as follows:

   The second and third operands have the same type; the result is of that type. If the operands have class type, the result is an rvalue temporary of the result type, which is copy-initialized from either the second operand or the third operand depending on the value of the first operand.

3. Change 4.1 [conv.lval] paragraph 2 as follows:

   The value contained in the object indicated by the lvalue is the rvalue result. When an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion occurs within the operand of sizeof (5.3.3 [expr.sizeof]) the value contained in the referenced object is not accessed, since that operator does not evaluate its operand. Otherwise, if the lvalue has a class type, the conversion copy-initializes a temporary of type T from the lvalue and the result of the conversion is an rvalue for the temporary. Otherwise, the value contained in the object indicated by the lvalue is the rvalue result.

[Note: this wording partially resolves issue 86. See also issue 462.]

339. Overload resolution in operand of sizeof in constant expression

[Voted into the WP at the June, 2008 meeting as paper N2634.]

I've seen some pieces of code recently that put complex expressions involving overload resolution inside sizeof operations in constant expressions in templates.

5.19 [expr.const] paragraph 1 implies that some kinds of nonconstant expressions are allowed inside a sizeof in a constant expression, but it's not clear that this was intended to extend all the way to things like overload resolution. Allowing such things has some hidden costs. For example, name mangling has to be able to represent all operators, including calls, and not just the operators that can appear in constant expressions.

  template <int I> struct A {};

  char xxx(int);
  char xxx(float);

  template <class T> A<sizeof(xxx((T)0))> f(T){}

  int main()
  {
    f(1);
  }

If complex expressions are indeed allowed, it should be because of an explicit committee decision rather than because of some looseness in this section of the standard.

Notes from the 4/02 meeting:

Any argument for restricting such expressions must involve a cost/benefit ratio: a restriction would be palatable only if it causes minimum hardship for users and allows a substantial reduction in implementation cost. If we propose a restriction, it must be one that library writers can live with.

Lots of these cases fail with current compilers, so there can't be a lot of existing code using them. We plan to find out what cases there are in libraries like Loki and Boost.

We noted that in many cases one can move the code into a class to get the same result. The implementation problem comes up when the expression-in-sizeof is in a template deduction context or part of a template signature. The problem cases are ones where an error causes deduction to fail, as opposed to contexts where an error causes a diagnostic. The latter contexts are easier to handle; however, there are situations where "fail deduction" may be the desired behavior.

Notes from the April 2003 meeting:

Here is a better example:

  extern "C" int printf(const char *, ...);
  char f(int);
  int f(...);
  // Approach 1 -- overload resolution in template class
  // No problem
  template <class T> struct conv_int {
    static const bool value = (sizeof(f(T())) == 1);
  };
  // Approach 2 -- overload resolution in type deduction
  // Difficult
  template <int I> struct A {
    static const int value = I;
  };
  template <class T> bool conv_int2(A<sizeof(f(T()))> p) {
    return p.value == 1;
  }

  template<typename T>
  A<sizeof(f(T()))> make_A() {
    return A<sizeof(f(T()))>();
  }

  int main() {
    printf("short: %d\n", conv_int<short>::value);
    printf("int *: %d\n", conv_int<int *>::value);
    printf("short: %d\n", conv_int2<short>(make_A<short>()));
    printf("int *: %d\n", conv_int2<int *>(make_A<int*>()));
  }

The core working group liked the idea of a restriction that says that expressions inside sizeof in template signature contexts must be otherwise valid as nontype template argument expressions (i.e., integer operations only, limited casts). This of course is subject to whether users can live with that restriction. This topic was brought up in full committee, but there was limited feedback from other groups.

It was also noted that if typeof (whatever it is called) is added, there may be a similar issue there.

Note (March, 2005):

Dave Abrahams (quoting a Usenet posting by Vladimir Marko): The decltype and auto proposal (revision 3: N1607) presents

    template <class T,class U>
    decltype((*(T*)0)+(*(U*)0)) add(const T& t,const U& u);

as a valid declaration (if the proposal is accepted). If [the restrictions in the April, 2003 note] really applied to decltype, the declaration above would be invalid. AFAICT every non-trivial use of decltype in a template function declaration would be invalid. And for me this would render my favorite proposal useless.

I would propose to allow any kind of expression inside sizeof (and decltype) and explicitly add sizeof (and decltype) expressions involving template-parameters to non-deduced contexts (add a bullet to 14.8.2.4 [temp.deduct.partial] paragraph 4).

Jaakko Jarvi: Just reinforcing that this is important and hope for insights. The topic is discussed a bit on page 10 of the latest revision of the proposal (N1705). Here's a quote from the proposal:

However, it is crucial that no restrictions are placed on what kinds of expressions are allowed inside decltype, and therefore also inside sizeof. We suggest that issue 339 is resolved to require the compiler to fail deduction (apply the SFINAE principle), and not produce an error, for as large set of invalid expressions in operands of sizeof or decltype as is possible to comfortably implement. We wish that implementors aid in classifying the kinds of expressions that should produce errors, and the kinds that should lead to failure of deduction.

Notes from the April, 2007 meeting:

The CWG is pursuing a compromise proposal, to which the EWG has tentatively agreed, which would allow arbitrary expressions in the return types of function templates but which would restrict the expressions that participate in the function signature (and thus in overload resolution) to those that can be used as non-type template arguments. During deduction and overload resolution, these complex return types would be ignored; that is, there would be no substitution of the deduced template arguments into the return type at this point. If such a function were selected by overload resolution, however, a substitution failure in the return type would produce a diagnostic rather than a deduction failure.

This approach works when doing overload resolution in the context of a function call, but additional tricks (still being defined) are needed in other contexts such as friend function declaration matching and taking the address of a function, in which the return type does play a part.

Notes from the July, 2007 meeting:

The problem is whether arbitrary expressions (for example, ones that include overload resolution) are allowed in template deduction contexts, and, if so, which expression errors are SFINAE failures and which are hard errors.

This issue deals with arbitrary expressions inside sizeof in deduction contexts. That's a fringe case right now (most compilers don't accept them). decltype makes the problem worse, because the standard use case is one that involves overload resolution. Generalized constant expressions make it worse yet, because they allow overload resolution and class types to show up in any constant expression in a deduction context.

Why is this an issue? Why don't we just say everything is allowed and be done with it?

• Because it's hard to implement the general case. Template deduction/substitution has historically used a simplified model of semantic checking, i.e., the SFINAE rules (which are mostly about types), instead of full semantic checking. This limited semantic checking is typically done by completely separate code from the code for “normal” expression checking, and it's not easy to extend it to the general case. “Speculative compilation” sounds like an easy way out, but in practice compilers can't do that.
• Because it affects name mangling and therefore the ABI.
• Because we need to figure out what to say and how to say it in the Standard.

At the April, 2007 meeting, we were headed toward a solution that imposed a restriction on expressions in deduction contexts, but such a restriction seems to really hamper uses of constexpr functions. So we're now proposing that fully general expressions be allowed, and that most errors in such expressions be treated as SFINAE failures rather than errors.

One issue with writing Standard wording for that is how to define “most.” There's a continuum of errors, some errors being clearly SFINAE failures, and some clearly “real” errors, with lots of unclear cases in between. We decided it's easier to write the definition by listing the errors that are not treated as SFINAE failures, and the list we came up with is as follows:

1. errors that occur while processing some entity external to the expression, e.g., an instantiation of a template or the generation of the definition of an implicitly-declared copy constructor
2. errors due to implementation limits
3. errors due to access violations (this is a judgment call, but the philosophy of access has always been that it doesn't affect visibility)

Everything else produces a SFINAE failure rather than a hard error.

There was broad consensus that this felt like a good solution, but that feeling was mixed with trepidation on several fronts:

• The implementation cost is quite significant, at least for EDG and Microsoft (under GCC, it may be easier). It involves moving around a large amount of code. This may delay implementation and introduce bugs in compilers.
• While it seems upward compatible with C++03, it's possible it will break existing code. Any big change in template processing has a pretty good chance of breaking something.
• Since there is no implementation, we don't really know how it will work in the real world.

We will be producing wording for the Working Draft for the October, 2007 meeting.

(See also issue 657.)

366. String literal allowed in integral constant expression?

[Voted into WP at October 2003 meeting.]

According to 16.1 [cpp.cond] paragraph 1, the if-group

#if "Hello, world"

is well-formed, since it is an integral constant expression. Since that may not be obvious, here is why:

5.19 [expr.const] paragraph 1 says that an integral constant expression may involve literals (2.14 [lex.literal]); "Hello, world" is a literal. It restricts operators to not use certain type conversions; this expression does not use type conversions. It further disallows functions, class objects, pointers, ... - this expression is none of those, since it is an array.

However, 16.1 [cpp.cond] paragraph 6 does not explain what to do with this if-group, since the expression evaluates neither to false(zero) nor true(non-zero).

Proposed resolution (October 2002):

Change the beginning of the second sentence of 5.19 [expr.const] paragraph 1 which currently reads

An integral constant-expression can involve only literals (2.14 [lex.literal]), ...

An integral constant-expression can involve only literals of arithmetic types (2.14 [lex.literal], 3.9.1 [basic.fundamental]), ...

367. throw operator allowed in constant expression?

[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]

The following translation unit appears to be well-formed.

int x[true?throw 4:5];

According to 5.19 [expr.const], this appears to be an integral constant expression: it is a conditional expression, involves only literals, and no assignment, increment, decrement, function-call, or comma operators. However, if this is well-formed, the standard gives no meaning to this declaration, since the array bound (8.3.4 [dcl.array] paragraph 1) cannot be computed.

I believe the defect is that throw expressions should also be banned from constant expressions.

Notes from October 2002 meeting:

We should also check on new and delete.

Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:

Although it could be argued that all three of these operators potentially involve function calls — throw to std::terminate, new and delete to the corresponding allocation and deallocation functions — and thus would already be excluded from constant expressions, this reasoning was considered to be too subtle to allow closing the issue with no change. A modification that explicitly clarifies the status of these operators will be drafted.

Proposed resolution (October, 2005):

Change the last sentence of 5.19 [expr.const] as indicated:

In particular, except in sizeof expressions, functions, class objects, pointers, or references shall not be used, and assignment, increment, decrement, function-call function call (including new-expressions and delete-expressions), or comma operators, or throw-expressions shall not be used.

Note: this sentence is also changed by the resolution of issue 530.

457. Wording nit on use of const variables in constant expressions

[Voted into WP at April 2005 meeting.]

I'm looking at 5.19 [expr.const]. I see:

An integral constant-expression can involve only ... const variables or static data members of integral or enumeration types initialized with constant expressions ...

Shouldn't that be "const non-volatile"?

It seems weird to say that:

  const volatile int i = 3;
  int j[i];

Steve Adamczyk: See issue 76, which made the similar change to 7.1.6.1 [dcl.type.cv] paragraph 2, and probably should have changed this one as well.

Proposed resolution (October, 2004):

Change the first sentence in the second part of 5.19 [expr.const] paragraph 1 as follows:

An integral constant-expression can involve only literals of arithmetic types (2.14 [lex.literal], 3.9.1 [basic.fundamental]), enumerators, non-volatile const variables or static data members of integral or enumeration types initialized with constant expressions (8.5 [dcl.init]), non-type template parameters of integral or enumeration types, and sizeof expressions.

530. Nontype template arguments in constant expressions

[Voted into the WP at the April, 2007 meeting as part of paper J16/07-0095 = WG21 N2235.]

Consider:

    template <int* p> struct S {
        static const int I = 3;
    };
    int i;
    int a[S<&i>::I];

Clearly this should be valid, but a pedantic reading of 5.19 [expr.const] would suggest that this is invalid because “&i” is not permitted in integral constant expressions.

Proposed resolution (October, 2005):

Change the last sentence of 5.19 [expr.const] paragraph 1 as indicated:

In particular, except in non-type template-arguments or sizeof expressions, functions, class objects, pointers, or references shall not be used, and assignment, increment, decrement, function-call, or comma operators shall not be used.

(Note: the same text is changed by the resolution of issue 367.)

Notes from April, 2006 meeting:

The proposed resolution could potentially be read as saying that the prohibited operations and operators would be permitted in integral constant expressions that are non-type template-arguments. John Spicer is investigating an alternate approach, to say that expressions in non-type template arguments are not part of the expression in which the template-id appears (in contrast to the operand of sizeof, which is part of the containing expression).

Additional note (May, 2008):

This issue is resolved by the rewrite of 5.19 [expr.const] that was done in conjunction with the constexpr proposal, paper N2235.

684. Constant expressions involving the address of an automatic variable

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting (resolution in paper N2757).]

The expressions that are excluded from being constant expressions in 5.19 [expr.const] paragraph 2 does not address an example like the following:

    void f() {
       int a;
       constexpr int* p = &a;    // should be ill-formed, currently isn't
    }

Suggested resolution:

Add the following bullet to the list in 5.19 [expr.const] paragraph 2:

• an id-expression that refers to a variable with automatic storage duration unless a permitted lvalue-to-rvalue conversion is applied (see above)

Proposed resolution (June, 2008):

1. Change 3.6.2 [basic.start.init] paragraph 1 as follows:

Objects with static storage duration (3.7.1 [basic.stc.static]) or thread storage duration (3.7.2) shall be zero-initialized (8.5 [dcl.init]) before any other initialization takes place. A reference with static or thread storage duration and an object of trivial or literal type with static or thread storage duration can be initialized with a constant expression (5.19 [expr.const]); this is called constant initialization. Constant initialization is performed:

• if an object of trivial or literal type with static or thread storage duration is initialized with a constant expression (5.19 [expr.const]), or

• if a reference with static or thread storage duration is initialized with a constant expression that is not an lvalue designating an object with thread or automatic storage duration.

Together, zero-initialization and constant initialization...

2. Add the following in 5.19 [expr.const] paragraph 2:

• an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion (4.1) unless it is applied to...

• an array-to-pointer conversion (4.2 [conv.array]) that is applied to an lvalue that designates an object with thread or automatic storage duration

• a unary operator & (5.3.1 [expr.unary.op]) that is applied to an lvalue that designates an object with thread or automatic storage duration

• an id-expression that refers to a variable or data member of reference type;

• ...

(Note: the change to 3.6.2 [basic.start.init] paragraph 1 needs to be reconciled with the conflicting change in issue 688.)

276. Order of destruction of parameters and temporaries

[Voted into the WP at the June, 2008 meeting.]

According to 6.6 [stmt.jump] paragraph 2,

On exit from a scope (however accomplished), destructors (12.4 [class.dtor]) are called for all constructed objects with automatic storage duration (3.7.3 [basic.stc.auto]) (named objects or temporaries) that are declared in that scope, in the reverse order of their declaration.

This wording is problematic for temporaries and for parameters. First, temporaries are not "declared," so this requirement does not apply to them, in spite of the assertion in the quoted text that it does.

Second, although the parameters of a function are declared in the called function, they are constructed and destroyed in the calling context, and the order of evaluation of the arguments is unspecified (cf 5.2.2 [expr.call] paragraphs 4 and 8). The order of destruction of the parameters might, therefore, be different from the reverse order of their declaration.

Notes from 04/01 meeting:

Any resolution of this issue should be careful not to introduce requirements that are redundant or in conflict with those of other parts of the IS. This is especially true in light of the pending issues with respect to the destruction of temporaries (see issues 86, 124, 199, and 201). If possible, the wording of a resolution should simply reference the relevant sections.

It was also noted that the temporary for a return value is also destroyed "out of order."

Note that issue 378 picks a nit with the wording of this same paragraph.

Proposed Resolution (November, 2006):

Change 6.6 [stmt.jump] paragraph 2 as follows:

On exit from a scope (however accomplished), destructors (12.4 [class.dtor]) are called for all constructed objects with automatic storage duration (3.7.3 [basic.stc.auto]) (named objects or temporaries) that are declared in that scope, in the reverse order of their declaration. variables with automatic storage duration (3.7.3 [basic.stc.auto]) that have been constructed in that scope are destroyed in the reverse order of their construction. [Note: For temporaries, see 12.2 [class.temporary]. —end note] Transfer out of a loop...

378. Wording that says temporaries are declared

Paragraph 6.6 [stmt.jump] paragraph 2 of the standard says:

On exit from a scope (however accomplished), destructors (12.4 [class.dtor]) are called for all constructed objects with automatic storage duration (3.7.3 [basic.stc.auto]) (named objects or temporaries) that are declared in that scope.

It refers to objects "that are declared" but the text in parenthesis also mentions temporaries, which cannot be declared. I think that text should be removed.

This is related to issue 276.

Proposed Resolution (November, 2006):

This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 276.

281. inline specifier in friend declarations

[Moved to DR at October 2002 meeting.]

There is currently no restriction on the use of the inline specifier in friend declarations. That would mean that the following usage is permitted:

    struct A {
        void f();
    };

    struct B {
        friend inline void A::f();
    };

    void A::f(){}

I believe this should be disallowed because a friend declaration in one class should not be able to change attributes of a member function of another class.

More generally, I think that the inline attribute should only be permitted in friend declarations that are definitions.

Notes from the 04/01 meeting:

The consensus agreed with the suggested resolution. This outcome would be similar to the resolution of issue 136.

Proposed resolution (10/01):

Add to the end of 7.1.2 [dcl.fct.spec] paragraph 3:

If the inline specifier is used in a friend declaration, that declaration shall be a definition or the function shall have previously been declared inline.

317. Can a function be declared inline after it has been called?

[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]

Steve Clamage: Consider this sequence of declarations:

  void foo() { ... }
  inline void foo();

Bjarne Stroustrup: Neither could I, so I looked in the ARM, which addressed this case (apparently for member function only) in some detail in 7.1.2 (pp103-104).

The ARM allows declaring a function inline after its initial declaration, as long as it has not been called.

Steve Clamage: If the above code is valid, how about this:

  void foo() { ... }    // define foo
  void bar() { foo(); } // use foo
  inline void foo();    // declare foo inline

Bjarne Stroustrup: ... and [the ARM] disallows declaring a function inline after it has been called.

This may still be a good resolution.

Steve Clamage: But the situation in the ARM is the reverse: Declare a function inline, and define it later (with no intervening call). That's a long-standing rule in C++, and allows you to write member function definitions outside the class.

In my example, the compiler could reasonably process the entire function as out-of-line, and not discover the inline declaration until it was too late to save the information necessary for inline generation. The equivalent of another compiler pass would be needed to handle this situation.

Bjarne Stroustrup: I see, and I think your argument it conclusive.

Steve Clamage: I'd like to open a core issue on this point, and I recommend wording along the lines of: "A function defined without an inline specifier shall not be followed by a declaration having an inline specifier."

I'd still like to allow the common idiom

  class T {
    int f();
  };
  inline int T::f() { ... }

Martin Sebor: Since the inline keyword is just a hint to the compiler, I don't see any harm in allowing the construct. Your hypothetical compiler can simply ignore the inline on the second declaration. On the other hand, I feel that adding another special rule will unnecessarily complicate the language.

Steve Clamage: The inline specifier is more than a hint. You can have multiple definitions of inline functions, but only one definition of a function not declared inline. In particular, suppose the above example were in a header file, and included multiple times in a program.

Proposed resolution (October, 2004):

Add the indicated words to 7.1.2 [dcl.fct.spec] paragraph 4:

An inline function shall be defined in every translation unit in which it is used and shall have exactly the same definition in every case (3.2 [basic.def.odr]). [Note: a call to the inline function may be encountered before its definition appears in the translation unit. —end note] If the definition of a function appears in a translation unit before its first declaration as inline, the program is ill-formed. If a function with external linkage is declared inline in one translation unit...

396. Misleading note regarding use of auto for disambiguation

[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]

BTW, I noticed that the following note in 7.1.1 [dcl.stc] paragraph 2 doesn't seem to have made it onto the issues list or into the TR:

[Note: hence, the auto specifier is almost always redundant and not often used; one use of auto is to distinguish a declaration-statement from an expression-statement (stmt.ambig) explicitly. --- end note]

I thought that this was well known to be incorrect, because using auto does not disambiguate this. Writing:

  auto int f();

Proposed resolution: Replace that note with the following note:

[Note: hence, the auto specifier is always redundant and not often used. --- end note]

John Spicer: I support the proposed change, but I think the disambiguation case is not the one that you describe. An example of the supposed disambiguation is:

  int i;
  int j;
  int main()
  {
    int(i);  // declares i, not reference to ::i
    auto int(j);  // declares j, not reference to ::j
  }

cfront would take "int(i)" as a cast of ::i, so the auto would force what it would otherwise treat as a statement to be considered a declaration (cfront 3.0 warned that this would change in the future).

In a conforming compiler the auto is always redundant (as you say) because anything that could be considered a valid declaration should be treated as one.

Proposed resolution (April 2003):

Replace 7.1.1 [dcl.stc] paragraph 2

[Note: hence, the auto specifier is almost always redundant and not often used; one use of auto is to distinguish a declaration-statement from an expression-statement (6.8 [stmt.ambig]) explicitly. --- end note]

[Note: hence, the auto specifier is always redundant and not often used. One use of auto is to distinguish a declaration-statement from an expression-statement explicitly rather than relying on the disambiguation rules (6.8 [stmt.ambig]), which may aid readers. --- end note]

397. Same address for string literals from default arguments in inline functions?

[Voted into WP at April, 2007 meeting.]

Are string literals from default arguments used in extern inlines supposed to have the same addresses across all translation units?

  void f(const char* = "s")
  inline g() {
    f();
  }

Must the "s" strings be the same in all copies of the inline function?

Steve Adamczyk: The totality of the standard's wisdom on this topic is (7.1.2 [dcl.fct.spec] paragraph 4):

A string literal in an extern inline function is the same object in different translation units.

I'd hazard a guess that a literal in a default argument expression is not "in" the extern inline function (it doesn't appear in the tokens of the function), and therefore it need not be the same in different translation units.

I don't know that users would expect such strings to have the same address, and an equally valid (and incompatible) expectation would be that the same string literal would be used for every expansion of a given default argument in a single translation unit.

Notes from April 2003 meeting:

The core working group feels that the address of a string literal should be guaranteed to be the same only if it actually appears textually within the body of the inline function. So a string in a default argument expression in a block extern declaration inside the body of a function would be the same in all instances of the function. On the other hand, a string in a default argument expression in the header of the function (i.e., outside of the body) would not be the same.

Proposed resolution (April 2003):

Change the last sentence and add the note to the end of 7.1.2 [dcl.fct.spec] paragraph 4:

A string literal in the body of an extern inline function is the same object in different translation units. [Note: A string literal that is encountered only in the context of a function call (in the default argument expression of the called function), is not “in” the extern inline function.]

Notes from October 2003 meeting:

We discussed ctor-initializer lists and decided that they are also part of the body. We've asked Clark Nelson to work on syntax changes to give us a syntax term for the body of a function so we can refer to it here. See also issue 452, which could use this term.

(October, 2005: moved to “review” status in concert with issue 452. With that resolution, the wording above needs no further changes.)

Proposed resolution (April, 2006):

Change the last sentence and add the note to the end of 7.1.2 [dcl.fct.spec] paragraph 4:

A string literal in the body of an extern inline function is the same object in different translation units. [Note: A string literal appearing in a default argument expression is not considered to be “in the body” of an inline function merely by virtue of the expression’s use in a function call from that inline function. —end note]

477. Can virtual appear in a friend declaration?

[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]

I couldn't find wording that makes it invalid to say friend virtual... The closest seems to be 7.1.2 [dcl.fct.spec] paragraph 5, which says:

The virtual specifier shall only be used in declarations of nonstatic class member functions that appear within a member-specification of a class definition; see 10.3 [class.virtual].

I don't think that excludes a friend declaration (which is a valid member-specification by 9.2 [class.mem]).

John Spicer: I agree that virtual should not be allowed on friend declarations. I think the wording in 7.1.2 [dcl.fct.spec] is intended to be the declaration of a function within its class, although I think the wording should be improved to make it clearer.

Proposed resolution (October, 2005):

Change 7.1.2 [dcl.fct.spec] paragraphs 5-6 as indicated:

The virtual specifier shall only be used only in declarations the initial declaration of a non-static class member functions that appear within a member-specification of a class definition function; see 10.3 [class.virtual].

The explicit specifier shall be used only in declarations the declaration of constructors a constructor within a its class definition; see 12.3.1 [class.conv.ctor].

424. Wording problem with issue 56 resolution on redeclaring typedefs in class scope

[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]

I wonder if perhaps the core issue 56 change in 7.1.3 [dcl.typedef] paragraph 2 wasn't quite careful enough. The intent was to remove the allowance for:

  struct S {
    typedef int I;
    typedef int I;
  };

but I think it also disallows the following:

  class B {
    typedef struct A {} A;
    void f(struct B::A*p);
  };

See also issue 407.

Proposed resolution (October 2003):

At the end of 7.1.3 [dcl.typedef] paragraph 2, add the following:

In a given class scope, a typedef specifier can be used to redefine any class-name declared in that scope that is not also a typedef-name to refer to the type to which it already refers. [Example:

  struct S {
    typedef struct A {} A;  // OK
    typedef struct B B;     // OK
    typedef A A;            // error
  };

]

647. Non-constexpr instances of constexpr constructor templates

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]

According to 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 5,

If the instantiated template specialization of a constexpr function template would fail to satisfy the requirements for a constexpr function, the constexpr specifier is ignored and the specialization is not a constexpr function.

One would expect to see a similar provision for an instantiated constructor template (because the requirements for a constexpr function [paragraph 3] are different from the requirements for a constexpr constructor [paragraph 4]), but there is none; constexpr constructor templates are not mentioned.

Suggested resolution:

Change the wording of 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 5 as indicated:

If the instantiated template specialization of a constexpr function template would fail to satisfy the requirements for a constexpr function or constexpr constructor, as appropriate to the function template, the constexpr specifier is ignored and the specialization is not a constexpr function or constexpr constructor.

Proposed resolution (June, 2008):

[Drafting note: This resolution goes beyond the problem described in the issue discussion, which is one aspect of the general failure of the existing wording to deal consistently with the distinctions between constexpr functions and constexpr constructors. The wording below attempts to rectify that problem systematically.]

1. Change 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 2 as follows:

A constexpr specifier used in a function declaration the declaration of a function that is not a constructor declares that function to be a constexpr function. Similarly, a constexpr specifier used in a constructor declaration declares that constructor to be a constexpr constructor. Constexpr functions and constexpr constructors are implicitly inline (7.1.2 [dcl.fct.spec]). A constexpr function shall not be virtual (10.3).

2. Change 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 3 as follows:

The definition of a constexpr function shall satisfy the following constraints:

• it shall not be virtual (10.3 [class.virtual])

• its return type shall be a literal type

• each of its parameter types shall be a literal type

• its function-body shall be a compound-statement of the form

  { return expression ; }

  where expression is a potential constant expression (5.19 [expr.const])

• every implicit conversion used in converting expression to the function return type (8.5 [dcl.init]) shall be one of those allowed in a constant expression (5.19 [expr.const]).

[Example:...

3. Change 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 4 as follows:

The definition of a constexpr constructor shall satisfy the following constraints:

• each of its parameter types shall be a literal type

• its function-body shall not be a function-try-block

• the compound-statement of its function-body shall be empty

• every non-static data member and base class sub-object shall be initialized (12.6.2 [class.base.init])

• every constructor involved in initializing non-static data members and base class sub-objects invoked by a mem-initializer shall be a constexpr constructor invoked with potential constant expression arguments, if any.

• every constructor argument and full-expression in a mem-initializer shall be a potential constant expression

• every implicit conversion used in converting a constructor argument to the corresponding parameter type and converting a full-expression to the corresponding member type shall be one of those allowed in a constant expression.

A trivial copy constructor is also a constexpr constructor. [Example: ...

4. Change 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 5 as follows:

If the instantiated template specialization of a constexpr function template would fail to satisfy the requirements for a constexpr function or constexpr constructor, the constexpr specifier is ignored and the specialization is not a constexpr function.

5. Change 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 6 as follows:

A constexpr specifier used in for a non-static member function definition that is not a constructor declares that member function to be const (9.3.1 [class.mfct.non-static]). [Note: ...

648. Constant expressions in constexpr initializers

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]

The current wording of 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 7 seems not quite correct. It reads,

A constexpr specifier used in an object declaration declares the object as const. Such an object shall be initialized, and every expression that appears in its initializer (8.5 [dcl.init]) shall be a constant expression.

The phrase “every expression” is intended to cover multiple arguments to a constexpr constructor and multiple expressions in an aggregate initializer. However, it could be read (incorrectly) as saying that non-constant expressions cannot appear as subexpressions in such initializers, even in places where they do not render the full-expression non-constant (i.e., as unevaluated operands and in the unselected branches of &&, ||, and ?:). Perhaps this problem could be remedied by replacing “every expression” with “every full-expression?”

Proposed resolution (June, 2008):

Change 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 7 as follows:

A constexpr specifier used in an object declaration declares the object as const. Such an object shall be initialized, and every expression that appears in its initializer (8.5) initialized. If it is initialized by a constructor call, the constructor shall be a constexpr constructor and every argument to the constructor shall be a constant expression. Otherwise, every full-expression that appears in its initializer shall be a constant expression. Every implicit conversion used...

283. Template type-parameters are not syntactically type-names

[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]

Although 14.1 [temp.param] paragraph 3 contains an assertion that

A type-parameter defines its identifier to be a type-name (if declared with class or typename)

the grammar in 7.1.6.2 [dcl.type.simple] paragraph 1 says that a type-name is either a class-name, an enum-name, or a typedef-name. The identifier in a template type-parameter is none of those. One possibility might be to equate the identifier with a typedef-name instead of directly with a type-name, which would have the advantage of not requiring parallel treatment of the two in situations where they are treated the same (e.g., in elaborated-type-specifiers, see issue 245). See also issue 215.

Proposed resolution (Clark Nelson, March 2002):

In 14.1 [temp.param] paragraph 3, change "A type-parameter defines its identifier to be a type-name" to "A type-parameter defines its identifier to be a typedef-name"

In 7.1.6.3 [dcl.type.elab] paragraph 2, change "If the identifier resolves to a typedef-name or a template type-parameter" to "If the identifier resolves to a typedef-name".

This has been consolidated with the edits for some other issues. See N1376=02-0034.

516. Use of signed in bit-field declarations

[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]

7.1.6.2 [dcl.type.simple] paragraph 3 reads,

It is implementation-defined whether bit-fields and objects of char type are represented as signed or unsigned quantities. The signed specifier forces char objects and bit-fields to be signed; it is redundant with other integral types.

The last sentence in that quote is misleading w.r.t. bit-fields. The first sentence in that quote is correct but incomplete.

Proposed fix: change the two sentences to read:

It is implementation-defined whether objects of char type are represented as signed or unsigned quantities. The signed specifier forces char objects signed; it is redundant with other integral types except when declaring bit-fields (9.6 [class.bit]).

Proposed resolution (October, 2005):

Change 7.1.6.2 [dcl.type.simple] paragraph 3 as indicated:

When multiple simple-type-specifiers are allowed, they can be freely intermixed with other decl-specifiers in any order. [Note: It is implementation-defined whether bit-fields and objects of char type and certain bit-fields (9.6 [class.bit]) are represented as signed or unsigned quantities. The signed specifier forces bit-fields and char objects and bit-fields to be signed; it is redundant with other integral types in other contexts. —end note]

651. Problems in decltype specification and examples

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]

The second bullet of 7.1.6.2 [dcl.type.simple] paragraph 4 reads,

• otherwise, if e is a function call (5.2.2 [expr.call]) or an invocation of an overloaded operator (parentheses around e are ignored), decltype(e) is the return type of that function;

The reference to “that function” is imprecise; it is not the actual function called at runtime but the statically chosen function (ignoring covariant return types in virtual functions).

Also, the examples in this paragraph have errors:

1. The declaration of struct A should end with a semicolon.

2. The lines of the form decltype(...); are ill-formed; they need a declarator.

Proposed Resolution (October, 2007):

Change 7.1.6.2 [dcl.type.simple] paragraph 4 as follows:

The type denoted by decltype(e) is defined as follows:

• if e is an id-expression or a class member access (5.2.5 [expr.ref]), decltype(e) is the type of the entity named by e. If there is no such entity, or if e names a set of overloaded functions, the program is ill-formed;

• otherwise, if e is a function call (5.2.2 [expr.call]) or an invocation of an overloaded operator (parentheses around e are ignored), decltype(e) is the return type of that the statically chosen function;

• otherwise, if e is an lvalue, decltype(e) is T&, where T is the type of e;

• otherwise, decltype(e) is the type of e.

The operand of the decltype specifier is an unevaluated operand (clause 5 [expr]).

[Example:

    const int&& foo();
    int i;
    struct A { double x; };
    const A* a = new A();
    decltype(foo()) x1;      // type is const int&&
    decltype(i) x2;          // type is int
    decltype(a->x) x3;       // type is double
    decltype((a->x)) x4;     // type is const double&

—end example]

629. auto parsing ambiguity

[Voted into the WP at the February, 2008 meeting as paper J16/08-0056 = WG21 N2546.]

We've found an interesting parsing ambiguity with the new meaning of auto. Consider:

    typedef int T;
    void f() {
        auto T = 42;  // Valid or not?
    }

The question here is whether T should be a type specifier or a storage class? 7.1.6.4 [dcl.spec.auto] paragraph 1 says,

The auto type-specifier has two meanings depending on the context of its use. In a decl-specifier-seq that contains at least one type-specifier (in addition to auto) that is not a cv-qualifier, the auto type-specifier specifies that the object named in the declaration has automatic storage duration.

In this case, T is a type-specifier, so the declaration is ill-formed: there is no declarator-id. Many, however, would like to see auto work “just like int,” i.e., forcing T to be redeclared in the inner scope. Concerns cited included hijacking of the name in templates and inline function bodies over the course of time if a program revision introduces a type with that name in the surrounding context. Although it was pointed out that enclosing the name in parentheses in the inner declaration would prevent any such problems, this was viewed as unacceptably ugly.

Notes from the April, 2007 meeting:

The CWG wanted to avoid a rule like, “if auto can be a type-specifier, it is” (similar to the existing “if it can be a declaration, it is” rule) because of the lookahead and backtracking difficulties such an approach would pose for certain kinds of parsing techniques. It was noted that the difficult lookahead cases all involve parentheses, which would not be a problem if only the “=” form of initializer were permitted in auto declarations; only very limited lookahead is required in that case. It was also pointed out that the “if it can be a type-specifier, it is” approach results in a quiet change of meaning for cases like

    typedef int T;
    int n = 3;
    void f() {
        auto T(n);
    }

This currently declares n to be an int variable in the inner scope but would, under the full lookahead approach, declare T to be a variable, quitely changing uses of n inside f() to refer to the outer variable.

The consensus of the CWG was to pursue the change to require the “=” form of initializer for auto.

Notes from the July, 2007 meeting:

See paper J16/07-0197 = WG21 N2337. There was no consensus among the CWG for either of the approaches recommended in the paper; additional input and direction is required.

172. Unsigned int as underlying type of enum

[Moved to DR at October 2002 meeting.]

According to 7.2 [dcl.enum] paragraph 5, the underlying type of an enum is an unspecified integral type, which could potentially be unsigned int. The promotion rules in 4.5 [conv.prom] paragraph 2 say that such an enumeration value used in an expression will be promoted to unsigned int. This means that a conforming implementation could give the value false for the following code:

    enum { zero };
    -1 < zero;       // might be false

On a related note, 7.2 [dcl.enum] paragraph 5 says,

the underlying type shall not be larger than int unless the value of an enumerator cannot fit in an int or unsigned int.

This specification does not allow for an enumeration like

    enum { a = -1, b = UINT_MAX };

Since each enumerator can fit in an int or unsigned int, the underlying type is required to be no larger than int, even though there is no such type that can represent all the enumerators.

Proposed resolution (04/01; obsolete, see below):

Change 7.2 [dcl.enum] paragraph 5 as follows:

It is implementation-defined which integral type is used as the underlying type for an enumeration except that the underlying type shall not be larger than int unless the value of an enumerator cannot fit in an int or unsigned int neither int nor unsigned int can represent all the enumerator values. Furthermore, the underlying type shall not be an unsigned type if the corresponding signed type can represent all the enumerator values.

See also issue 58.

Notes from 04/01 meeting:

It was noted that 4.5 [conv.prom] promotes unsigned types smaller than int to (signed) int. The signedness chosen by an implementation for small underlying types is therefore unobservable, so the last sentence of the proposed resolution above should apply only to int and larger types. This observation also prompted discussion of an alternative approach to resolving the issue, in which the b_min and b_max of the enumeration would determine the promoted type rather than the underlying type.

Proposed resolution (10/01):

Change 4.5 [conv.prom] paragraph 2 from

An rvalue of type wchar_t (3.9.1 [basic.fundamental]) or an enumeration type (7.2 [dcl.enum]) can be converted to an rvalue of the first of the following types that can represent all the values of its underlying type: int, unsigned int, long, or unsigned long.

An rvalue of type wchar_t (3.9.1 [basic.fundamental]) can be converted to an rvalue of the first of the following types that can represent all the values of its underlying type: int, unsigned int, long, or unsigned long. An rvalue of an enumeration type (7.2 [dcl.enum]) can be converted to an rvalue of the first of the following types that can represent all the values of the enumeration (i.e., the values in the range b_min to b_max as described in 7.2 [dcl.enum]): int, unsigned int, long, or unsigned long.

377. Enum whose enumerators will not fit in any integral type

[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]

7.2 [dcl.enum] defines the underlying type of an enumeration as an integral type "that can represent all the enumerator values defined in the enumeration".

What does the standard say about this code:

  enum E { a = LONG_MIN, b = ULONG_MAX };

?

I think this should be ill-formed.

Proposed resolution:

In 7.2 [dcl.enum] paragraph 5 after

The underlying type of an enumeration is an integral type that can represent all the enumerator values defined in the enumeration.

If no integral type can represent all the enumerator values, the enumeration is ill-formed.

518. Trailing comma following enumerator-list

[Voted into WP at April, 2006 meeting.]

The C language (since C99), and some C++ compilers, accept:

    enum { FOO, };

as syntactically valid. It would be useful

• for machine generated code

• for minimising changes when editing

• to allow a distinction between the final item being intended as an ordinary item or as a limit:

  enum { red, green, blue, num_colours };  // note no comma
  enum { fred, jim, sheila, };             // last is not special

This proposed change is to permit a trailing comma in enum by adding:

enum identifier_opt { enumerator-list , }

as an alternative definition for the enum-specifier nonterminal in 7.2 [dcl.enum] paragraph 1.

Proposed resolution (October, 2005):

Change the grammar in 7.2 [dcl.enum] paragraph 1 as indicated:

enum-specifier:

enum identifier_opt { enumerator-list_opt }

enum identifier_opt { enumerator-list , }

660. Unnamed scoped enumerations

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]

The current specification of scoped enumerations does not appear to forbid an example like the following, even though the enumerator e cannot be used:

    enum class { e };

This might be covered by 7 [dcl.dcl] paragraph 3,

In a simple-declaration, the optional init-declarator-list can be omitted only when declaring a class (clause 9 [class]) or enumeration (7.2 [dcl.enum]), that is, when the decl-specifier-seq contains either a class-specifier, an elaborated-type-specifier with a class-key (9.1 [class.name]), or an enum-specifier. In these cases and whenever a class-specifier or enum-specifier is present in the decl-specifier-seq, the identifiers in these specifiers are among the names being declared by the declaration (as class-names, enum-names, or enumerators, depending on the syntax). In such cases, and except for the declaration of an unnamed bit-field (9.6 [class.bit]), the decl-specifier-seq shall introduce one or more names into the program, or shall redeclare a name introduced by a previous declaration.

which, when combined with paragraph 2,

A declaration occurs in a scope (3.3 [basic.scope]); the scope rules are summarized in 3.4 [basic.lookup]. A declaration that declares a function or defines a class, namespace, template, or function also has one or more scopes nested within it. These nested scopes, in turn, can have declarations nested within them. Unless otherwise stated, utterances in clause 7 [dcl.dcl] about components in, of, or contained by a declaration or subcomponent thereof refer only to those components of the declaration that are not nested within scopes nested within the declaration.

appears to rule out the similar class definition,

    struct { int m; };

However, a scoped enumeration is not listed in paragraph 2 among the constructs containing a nested scope (although 3.3.8 [basic.scope.enum] does describe “enumeration scope”); furthermore, an enumerator-definition is not formally a “nested declaration.” If unusable scoped enumeration definitions are to be banned, these shortcomings in 7 [dcl.dcl] paragraph 2 must be addressed. (A note in 7.2 [dcl.enum] mentioning that unnamed scoped enumerations are not allowed would also be helpful.)

Notes from the February, 2008 meeting:

The consensus was to require that the identifier be present in an enum-specifier unless the enum-key is enum.

Proposed resolution (June, 2008):

Change 7.2 [dcl.enum] paragraph 2 as follows:

...The enum-keys enum class and enum struct are semantically equivalent; an enumeration type declared with one of these is a scoped enumeration, and its enumerators are scoped enumerators. The optional identifier shall not be omitted in the declaration of a scoped enumeration. The type-specifier-seq of an enum-base...

540. Propagation of cv-qualifiers in reference-to-reference collapse

[Voted into the WP at the October, 2006 meeting as part of paper J16/06-0188 = WG21 N2118.]

The resolution of issue 106 specifies that an attempt to create a type “reference to cv1 T,” where T is a typedef or template parameter of the type “reference to cv2 S,” actually creates the type “reference to cv12 S,” where cv12 is the union of the two sets of cv-qualifiers.

One objection that has been raised to this resolution is that it is inconsistent with the treatment of cv-qualification and references specified in 8.3.2 [dcl.ref] paragraph 1, which says that cv-qualifiers applied to a typedef or template argument that is a reference type are ignored. For example:

    typedef int& intref;
    const intref r1;       // reference to int
    const intref& r2;      // reference to const int

In fact, however, these two declarations are quite different. In the declaration of r1, const applies to a “top-level” reference, while in the declaration of t2, it occurs under a reference. In general, cv-qualifiers that appear under a reference are preserved, even if the type appears in a context in which top-level cv-qualification is removed, for example, in determining the type of a function from parameter types (8.3.5 [dcl.fct] paragraph 3) and in template argument deduction (14.8.2.1 [temp.deduct.call] paragraph 2).

Another objection to the resolution is that type composition gives different results in a single declaration than it does when separated into two declarations. For example:

    template <class T>
    struct X {
       typedef T const T_const;
       typedef T_const& type1;
       typedef T const& type2;
    };

    X<int&>::type1 t1;    // int&
    X<int&>::type2 t2;    // int const&

The initial motivation for the propagation of cv-qualification during reference-to-reference collapse was to prevent inadvertent loss of cv-qualifiers in contexts in which it could make a difference. For example, if the resolution were changed to discard, rather than propagate, embedded cv-qualification, overload resolution could surprisingly select a non-const version of a member function:

   struct X {
       void g();
       void g() const;
   };

   template <typename T> struct S {
       static void f(const T& t) {
           t.g();    // const or non-const???
       }
   };

   X x;

   void q() {
       S<X>::f(x);    // calls X::g() const
       S<X&>::f(x);   // calls X::g()
   }

Another potentially-surprising outcome of dropping embedded cv-qualifiers would be:

   template <typename T> struct A {
       void f(T&);          // mutating version
       void f(const T&);    // non-mutating version
   };

   A<int&> ai;    // Ill-formed: A<int&> declares f(int&) twice

On the other hand, those who would like to see the resolution changed to discard embedded cv-qualifiers observe that these examples are too simple to be representative of real-world code. In general, it is unrealistic to expect that a template written with non-reference type parameters in mind will automatically work correctly with reference type parameters as a result of applying the issue 106 resolution. Instead, template metaprogramming allows the template author to choose explicitly whether cv-qualifiers are propagated or dropped, according to the intended use of the template, and it is more important to respect the reasonable intuition that a declaration involving a template parameter will not change the type that the parameter represents.

As a sample of real-world code, tr1::tuple was examined. In both cases — the current resolution of issue 106 and one in which embedded cv-qualifiers were dropped — some metaprogramming was required to implement the intended interface, although the version reflecting the revised resolution was somewhat simpler.

Notes from the October, 2005 meeting:

The consensus of the CWG was that the resolution of issue 106 should be revised not to propagate embedded cv-qualification.

Note (February, 2006):

The wording included in the rvalue-reference paper, J16/06-0022 = WG21 N1952, incorporates changes intended to implement the October, 2005 consensus of the CWG.

11. How do the keywords typename/template interact with using-declarations?

[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]

Issue 1:

The working paper is not clear about how the typename/template keywords interact with using-declarations:

     template<class T> struct A {
         typedef int X;
     };
     
     template<class T> void f() {
         typename A<T>::X a;      // OK
         using typename A<T>::X;  // OK
         typename X b;  // ill-formed; X must be qualified
         X c;  // is this OK?
     }

1. Continue to allow typename in using-declarations, and template (for member templates) too. Attach the "is a type" or "is a template" attribute to the placeholder name which the using-declaration "declares"
2. Disallow typename and template in using-declarations (just as class-keys are disallowed now). Allow typename and template before unqualified names which refer to dependent qualified names through using-declarations.
3. Document that this is broken.

The core WG already resolved this issue according to (1), but the wording does not seem to have been added to the standard. New wording needs to be drafted.

Issue 2:

Either way, one more point needs clarification. If the first option is adopted:

     template<class T> struct A {
         struct X { };
     };
     
     template<class T> void g() {
         using typename A<T>::X;
         X c;    // if this is OK, then X by itself is a  type
         int X;  // is this OK?
     }

     template<class T> struct A {
         struct X { };
     };
     
     template<class T> void g() {
         using A<T>::X;
         int X;  // is this OK?
     }

From John Spicer:

The "not a new declaration" decision is more of a guiding principle than a hard and fast rule. For example, a name introduced in a using-declaration can have different access than the original declaration.

Like symbolic links, a using-declaration can be viewed as a declaration that declares an alias to another name, much like a typedef.

In my opinion, "X c;" is already well-formed. Why would we permit typename to be used in a using-declaration if not to permit this precise usage?

In my opinion, all that needs to be done is to clarify that the "typeness" or "templateness" attribute of the name referenced in the using-declaration is attached to the alias created by the using-declaration. This is solution #1.

The rules for multiple declarations with the same name in the same scope should treat a using-declaration which names a type as a typedef, just as a typedef of a class name is treated as a class declaration. This needs drafting work. Also see Core issue 36.

Rationale (04/99): Any semantics associated with the typename keyword in using-declarations should be considered an extension.

Notes from the April 2003 meeting:

This was reopened because we are now considering extensions again. We agreed that it is desirable for the typename to be "sticky" on a using-declaration, i.e., references to the name introduced by the using-declaration are known to be type names without the use of the typename keyword (which can't be specified on an unqualified name anyway, as of now). The related issue with the template keyword already has a separate issue 109.

Issue 2 deals with the "struct hack." There is an example in 7.3.3 [namespace.udecl] paragraph 10 that shows a use of using-declarations to import two names that coexist because of the "struct hack." After some deliberation, we decided that the template-dependent using-declaration case is different enough that we did not have to support the "struct hack" in that case. A name introduced in such a case is like a typedef, and no other hidden type can be accessed through an elaborated type specifier.

Proposed resolution (April 2003, revised October 2003):

Add a new paragraph to the bottom of 7.3.3 [namespace.udecl]:

If a using-declaration uses the keyword typename and specifies a dependent name (14.6.2 [temp.dep]), the name introduced by the using-declaration is treated as a typedef-name (7.1.3 [dcl.typedef]).

258. using-declarations and cv-qualifiers

[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]

According to 7.3.3 [namespace.udecl] paragraph 12,

When a using-declaration brings names from a base class into a derived class scope, member functions in the derived class override and/or hide member functions with the same name and parameter types in a base class (rather than conflicting).

Note that this description says nothing about the cv-qualification of the hiding and hidden member functions. This means, for instance, that a non-const member function in the derived class hides a const member function with the same name and parameter types instead of overloading it in the derived class scope. For example,

    struct A {
      virtual int f() const;
      virtual int f();
    };
    struct B: A {
      B();
      int f();
      using A::f;
    };

    const B cb;
    int i = cb.f(); // ill-formed: A::f() const hidden in B

The same terminology is used in 10.3 [class.virtual] paragraph 2:

If a virtual member function vf is declared in a class Base and in a class Derived, derived directly or indirectly from Base, a member function vf with the same name and same parameter list as Base::vf is declared, then Derived::vf is also virtual (whether or not it is so declared) and it overrides Base::vf.

Notes on the 04/01 meeting:

The hiding and overriding should be on the basis of the function signature, which includes any cv-qualification on the function.

Proposed resolution (04/02):

In 7.3.3 [namespace.udecl] paragraph 12 change:

When a using-declaration brings names from a base class into a derived class scope, member functions in the derived class override and/or hide member functions with the same name and parameter types in a base class (rather than conflicting).

When a using-declaration brings names from a base class into a derived class scope, member functions and member function templates in the derived class override and/or hide member functions and member function templates with the same name, parameter-type-list (8.3.5 [dcl.fct]), and cv-qualification in a base class (rather than conflicting).

In 10.3 [class.virtual] paragraph 2 change:

If a virtual member function vf is declared in a class Base and in a class Derived, derived directly or indirectly from Base, a member function vf with the same name and same parameter list as Base::vf is declared, then Derived::vf is also virtual (whether or not it is so declared) and it overrides Base::vf.

If a virtual member function vf is declared in a class Base and in a class Derived, derived directly or indirectly from Base, a member function vf with the same name, parameter-type-list (8.3.5 [dcl.fct]), and cv-qualification as Base::vf is declared, then Derived::vf is also virtual (whether or not it is so declared) and it overrides Base::vf.

See issue 140 for the definition of parameter-type-list.

460. Can a using-declaration name a namespace?

[Voted into WP at April 2005 meeting.]

Can a using-declaration be used to import a namespace?

namespace my_namespace{
  namespace my_namespace2 {
    int function_of_my_name_space(){ return 2;}
  }
}

int main (){
  using  ::my_namespace::my_namespace2;
  return my_namespace2::function_of_my_name_space();
}

Several popular compilers give an error on this, but there doesn't seem to be anything in 7.3.3 [namespace.udecl] that prohibits it. It should be noted that the user can get the same effect by using a namespace alias:

  namespace my_namespace2 = ::my_namespace::my_namespace2;

Notes from the March 2004 meeting:

We agree that it should be an error.

Proposed resolution (October, 2004):

Add the following as a new paragraph after 7.3.3 [namespace.udecl] paragraph 5:

A using-declaration shall not name a namespace;

4. Does extern "C" affect the linkage of function names with internal linkage?

[Moved to DR at 4/01 meeting.]

7.5 [dcl.link] paragraph 6 says the following:

At most one of a set of overloaded functions with a particular name can have C linkage.

        extern "C" {
            static void f(int) {}
            static void f(float) {}
        };

Suggested resolution: The extern "C" linkage specification applies only to the type of functions with internal linkage, and therefore some of the rules that have to do with name overloading don't apply.

Proposed Resolution:

The intent is to distingush implicit linkage from explicit linkage for both name linkage and language (function type) linkage. (It might be more clear to use the terms name linkage and type linkage to distinguish these concepts. A function can have a name with one kind of linkage and a type with a different kind of linkage. The function itself has no linkage: it has no name, only the declaration has a name. This becomes more obvious when you consider function pointers.)

The tentatively agreed proposal is to apply implicit linkage to names declared in brace-enclosed linkage specifications and to non-top-level names declared in simple linkage specifications; and to apply explicit linkage to top-level names declared in simple linkage specifications.

The language linkage of any function type formed through a function declarator is that of the nearest enclosing linkage-specification. For purposes of determining whether the declaration of a namespace-scope name matches a previous declaration, the language linkage portion of the type of a function declaration (that is, the language linkage of the function itself, not its parameters, return type or exception specification) is ignored.

For a linkage-specification using braces, i.e.

extern string-literal { declaration-seq_opt }

For a linkage-specification without braces, i.e.

extern string-literal declaration

the linkage of the names declared in the top-level declarators of declaration is specified by string-literal; if this conflicts with the linkage of any matching previous declarations, the program is ill-formed. The language linkage of the type of any top-level function declarator is specified by string-literal; if this conflicts with the language linkage of the type of any matching previous function declarations, the program is ill-formed. The effect of the linkage-specification on other (non top-level) names declared in declaration is the same as that of the brace-enclosed form.

Bill Gibbons: In particular, these should be well-formed:

    extern "C" void f(void (*fp)());   // parameter type is pointer to
                                       // function with C language linkage
    extern "C++" void g(void (*fp)()); // parameter type is pointer to
                                       // function with C++ language linkage

    extern "C++" {                     // well-formed: the linkage of "f"
        void f(void(*fp)());           // and the function type used in the
    }                                  // parameter still "C"

    extern "C" {                       // well-formed: the linkage of "g"
        void g(void(*fp)());           // and the function type used in the
    }                                  // parameter still "C++"

but these should not:

    extern "C++" void f(void(*fp)());  // error - linkage of "f" does not
                                       // match previous declaration
                                       // (linkage of function type used in
                                       // parameter is still "C" and is not
                                       // by itself ill-formed)
    extern "C" void g(void(*fp)());    // error - linkage of "g" does not
                                       // match previous declaration
                                       // (linkage of function type used in
                                       // parameter is still "C++" and is not
                                       // by itself ill-formed)

That is, non-top-level declarators get their linkage from matching declarations, if any, else from the nearest enclosing linkage specification. (As already described, top-level declarators in a brace-enclosed linkage specification get the linkage from matching declarations, if any, else from the linkage specifcation; while top-level declarators in direct linkage specifications get their linkage from that specification.)

Mike Miller: This is a pretty significant change from the current specification, which treats the two forms of language linkage similarly for most purposes. I don't understand why it's desirable to expand the differences.

It seems very unintuitive to me that you could have a top-level declaration in an extern "C" block that would not receive "C" linkage.

In the current standard, the statement in 7.5 [dcl.link] paragraph 4 that

the specified language linkage applies to the function types of all function declarators, function names, and variable names introduced by the declaration(s)

applies to both forms. I would thus expect that in

    extern "C" void f(void(*)());
    extern "C++" {
        void f(void(*)());
    }
    extern "C++" f(void(*)());

both "C++" declarations would be well-formed, declaring an overloaded version of f that takes a pointer to a "C++" function as a parameter. I wouldn't expect that either declaration would be a redeclaration (valid or invalid) of the "C" version of f.

Bill Gibbons: The potential difficulty is the matching process and the handling of deliberate overloading based on language linkage. In the above examples, how are these two declarations matched:

    extern "C" void f(void (*fp1)());

    extern "C++" {
        void f(void(*fp2)());
    }

given that the linkage that is part of fp1 is "C" while the linkage (prior to the matching process) that is part of fp2 is "C++"?

The proposal is that the linkage which is part of the parameter type is not determined until after the match is attempted. This almost always correct because you can't overload "C" and "C++" functions; so if the function names match, it is likely that the declarations are supposed to be the same.

Mike Miller: This seems like more trouble than it's worth. This comparison of function types ignoring linkage specifications is, as far as I know, not found anywhere in the current standard. Why do we need to invent it?

Bill Gibbons: It is possible to construct pathological cases where this fails, e.g.

    extern "C" typedef void (*PFC)();  // pointer to "C" linkage function
    void f(PFC);         // parameter is pointer to "C" function
    void f(void (*)());  // matching declaration or overload based on
                         // difference in linkage type?

It is reasonable to require explicit typedefs in this case so that in the above example the second function declaration gets its parameter type function linkage from the first function declaration.

(In fact, I think you can't get into this situation without having already used typedefs to declare different language linkage for the top-level and parameter linkages.)

For example, if the intent is to overload based on linkage a typedef is needed:

    extern "C" typedef void (*PFC)();  // pointer to "C" linkage function
    void f(PFC);              // parameter is pointer to "C" function
    typedef void (*PFCPP)();  // pointer to "C++" linkage function
    void f(PFCPP);            // parameter is pointer to "C++" function

In this case the two function declarations refer to different functions.

Mike Miller: This seems pretty strange to me. I think it would be simpler to determine the type of the parameter based on the containing linkage specification (implicitly "C++") and require a typedef if the user wants to override the default behavior. For example:

    extern "C" {
        typedef void (*PFC)();    // pointer to "C" function
        void f(void(*)());        // takes pointer to "C" function
    }

    void f(void(*)());            // new overload of "f", taking
                                  // pointer to "C++" function

    void f(PFC);                  // redeclare extern "C" version

Notes from 04/00 meeting:

The following changes were tentatively approved, but because they do not completely implement the proposal above the issue is being kept for the moment in "drafting" status.

Notes from 10/00 meeting:

After further discussion, the core language working group determined that the more extensive proposal described above is not needed and that the following changes are sufficient.

Proposed resolution (04/01):

1. Change the first sentence of 7.5 [dcl.link] paragraph 1 from

   All function types, function names, and variable names have a language linkage.

   to

   All function types, function names with external linkage, and variable names with external linkage have a language linkage.

2. Change the following sentence of 7.5 [dcl.link] paragraph 4:

   In a linkage-specification, the specified language linkage applies to the function types of all function declarators, function names, and variable names introduced by the declaration(s).

   to

   In a linkage-specification, the specified language linkage applies to the function types of all function declarators, function names with external linkage, and variable names with external linkage declared within the linkage-specification.

3. Add at the end of the final example on 7.5 [dcl.link] paragraph 4:

       extern "C" {
         static void f4();    // the name of the function f4 has
                              // internal linkage (not C language
                              // linkage) and the function's type
                              // has C language linkage
       }
       extern "C" void f5() {
         extern void f4();    // Okay -- name linkage (internal)
                              // and function type linkage (C
                              // language linkage) gotten from
                              // previous declaration.
       }
       extern void f4();      // Okay -- name linkage (internal)
                              // and function type linkage (C
                              // language linkage) gotten from
                              // previous declaration.
       void f6() {
         extern void f4();    // Okay -- name linkage (internal)
                              // and function type linkage (C
                              // language linkage) gotten from
                              // previous declaration.
       }
   

4. Change 7.5 [dcl.link] paragraph 7 from

   Except for functions with internal linkage, a function first declared in a linkage-specification behaves as a function with external linkage. [Example:

       extern "C" double f();
       static double f();     // error
   

   is ill-formed (7.1.1 [dcl.stc]). ] The form of linkage-specification that contains a braced-enclosed declaration-seq does not affect whether the contained declarations are definitions or not (3.1 [basic.def]); the form of linkage-specification directly containing a single declaration is treated as an extern specifier (7.1.1 [dcl.stc]) for the purpose of determining whether the contained declaration is a definition. [Example:

       extern "C" int i;      // declaration
       extern "C" {
   	  int i;           // definition
       }
   

   —end example] A linkage-specification directly containing a single declaration shall not specify a storage class. [Example:

       extern "C" static void f(); // error
   

   —end example]

   to

   A declaration directly contained in a linkage-specification is treated as if it contains the extern specifier (7.1.1 [dcl.stc]) for the purpose of determining the linkage of the declared name and whether it is a definition. Such a declaration shall not specify a storage class. [Example:

       extern "C" double f();
       static double f();     // error
       extern "C" int i;      // declaration
       extern "C" {
   	    int i;         // definition
       }
       extern "C" static void g(); // error
   

   —end example]

29. Linkage of locally declared functions

[Moved to DR at October 2002 meeting. This was incorrectly marked as having DR status between 4/01 and 4/02. It was overlooked when issue 4 was moved to DR at the 4/01 meeting; this one should have been moved as well, because it's resolved by the changes there.]

Consider the following:

    extern "C" void foo()
    {
        extern void bar();
        bar();
    }

The ARM is explicit and says

A linkage-specification for a function also applies to functions and objects declared within it.

In a linkage-specification, the specified language linkage applies to the function types of all function declarators, function names, and variable names introduced by the declaration(s).

From Mike Miller:

Yes: from 7 [dcl.dcl] paragraph 1,

declaration:
function-definition

function-definition:
decl-specifier-seq_opt declarator ctor-initializer_opt function-body

From Dag Brück:

Consider the following where extern "C" has been moved to a separate declaration:

    extern "C" void foo();
    
    void foo() { extern void bar(); bar(); }

As a side note, I have always wanted to think that placing extern "C" on a function definition or a separate declaration would produce identical programs.

Proposed Resolution (04/01):

See the proposed resolution for Core issue 4, which covers this case.

The ODR should also be checked to see whether it addresses name and type linkage.

686. Type declarations/definitions in type-specifier-seqs and type-ids

[Voted into the WP at the September, 2008 meeting.]

The restrictions on declaring and/or defining classes inside type-specifier-seqs and type-ids are inconsistent throughout the Standard. This is probably due to the fact that nearly all of the sections that deal with them attempt to state the restriction afresh. There are three cases:

1. 5.3.4 [expr.new], 6.4 [stmt.select], and 12.3.2 [class.conv.fct] prohibit “declarations” of classes and enumerations. That means that

       while (struct C* p = 0) ;
   

   is ill-formed unless a prior declaration of C has been seen. These appear to be cases that should have been fixed by issue 379, changing “class declaration” to “class definition,” but were overlooked.

2. 5.1.2 [expr.prim.lambda], 7 [dcl.dcl], and 8.3.5 [dcl.fct] (late-specified return types) do not contain any restriction at all.

3. All the remaining cases prohibit “type definitions,” apparently referring to classes and enumerations.

Suggested resolution:

Add something like, “A class or enumeration shall not be defined in a type-specifier-seq or in a type-id,” to a single place in the Standard and remove all other mentions of that restriction (allowing declarations via elaborated-type-specifier).

Mike Miller:

An alias-declaration is just a different syntax for a typedef declaration, which allows definitions of a class in the type; I would expect the same to be true of an alias-declaration. I don't have any particularly strong attachment to allowing a class definition in an alias-declaration. My only concern is introducing an irregularity into what are currently exact-match semantics with typedefs.

There's a parallel restriction in many (but not all?) of these places on typedef declarations.

Jens Maurer:

Those are redundant, as typedef is not a type-specifier, and should be removed as well.

Proposed resolution (March, 2008):

1. Delete the indicated words from 5.2.7 [expr.dynamic.cast] paragraph 1:

...Types shall not be defined in a dynamic_cast....

2. Delete the indicated words from 5.2.8 [expr.typeid] paragraph 4:

...Types shall not be defined in the type-id....

3. Delete the indicated words from 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast] paragraph 1:

...Types shall not be defined in a static_cast....

4. Delete the indicated words from 5.2.10 [expr.reinterpret.cast] paragraph 1:

...Types shall not be defined in a reinterpret_cast....

5. Delete the indicated words from 5.2.11 [expr.const.cast] paragraph 1:

...Types shall not be defined in a const_cast....

6. Delete paragraph 5 of 5.3.3 [expr.sizeof]:

Types shall not be defined in a sizeof expression.

7. Delete paragraph 5 of 5.3.4 [expr.new]:

The type-specifier-seq shall not contain class declarations, or enumeration declarations.

8. Delete paragraph 4 of 5.3.6 [expr.alignof]:

A type shall not be defined in an alignof expression.

9. Delete paragraph 3 of 5.4 [expr.cast]:

Types shall not be defined in casts.

10. Delete the indicated words from 6.4 [stmt.select] paragraph 2:

...The type-specifier-seq shall not contain typedef and shall not declare a new class or enumeration....

11. Add the indicated words to 7.1.6 [dcl.type] paragraph 3:

At least one type-specifier that is not a cv-qualifier is required in a declaration unless it declares a constructor, destructor or conversion function. [Footnote: ... ] A type-specifier-seq shall not define a class or enumeration unless it appears in the type-id of an alias-declaration (7.1.3 [dcl.typedef]).

12. Delete the indicated words from 12.3.2 [class.conv.fct] paragraph 1:

...Classes, enumerations, and typedef-names shall not be declared in the type-specifier-seq....

13. Delete the indicated words from 15.3 [except.handle] paragraph 1:

...Types shall not be defined in an exception-declaration.

14. Delete paragraph 6 of 15.4 [except.spec]:

Types shall not be defined in exception-specifications.

[Drafting note: no changes are required to 5.1.2 [expr.prim.lambda], 7.1.3 [dcl.typedef], 7.6.2 [dcl.align], 7.2 [dcl.enum], 8.3.5 [dcl.fct], 14.1 [temp.param], or 14.2 [temp.names].]

160. Missing std:: qualification

[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]

8.2 [dcl.ambig.res] paragraph 3 shows an example that includes <cstddef> with no using declarations or directives and refers to size_t without the std:: qualification.

Many references to size_t throughout the document omit the std:: namespace qualification.

This is a typical case. The use of std:: is inconsistent throughout the document.

In addition, the use of exception specifications should be examined for consistency.

(See also issue 282.)

Proposed resolution:

In 1.9 [intro.execution] paragraph 9, replace all two instances of "sig_atomic_t" by "std::sig_atomic_t".

In 3.1 [basic.def] paragraph 4, replace all three instances of "string" by "std::string" in the example and insert "#include <string>" at the beginning of the example code.

In 3.6.1 [basic.start.main] paragraph 4, replace

Calling the function

void exit(int);

declared in <cstdlib>...

by

Calling the function std::exit(int) declared in <cstdlib>...

and also replace "exit" by "std::exit" in the last sentence of that paragraph.

In 3.6.1 [basic.start.main] first sentence of paragraph 5, replace "exit" by "std::exit".

In 3.6.2 [basic.start.init] paragraph 4, replace "terminate" by "std::terminate".

In 3.6.3 [basic.start.term] paragraph 1, replace "exit" by "std::exit" (see also issue 28).

In 3.6.3 [basic.start.term] paragraph 3, replace all three instances of "atexit" by "std::atexit" and both instances of "exit" by "std::exit" (see also issue 28).

In 3.6.3 [basic.start.term] paragraph 4, replace

Calling the function

void abort();

declared in <cstdlib>...

by

Calling the function std::abort() declared in <cstdlib>...

In 3.7.4.1 [basic.stc.dynamic.allocation] paragraph 1 third sentence, replace "size_t" by "std::size_t".

In 3.7.4.1 [basic.stc.dynamic.allocation] paragraph 3, replace "new_handler" by "std::new_handler". Furthermore, replace "set_new_handler" by "std::set_new_handler" in the note.

In 3.7.4.1 [basic.stc.dynamic.allocation] paragraph 4, replace "type_info" by "std::type_info" in the note.

In 3.7.4.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation] paragraph 3, replace all four instances of "size_t" by "std::size_t".

In 3.8 [basic.life] paragraph 5, replace "malloc" by "std::malloc" in the example code and insert "#include <cstdlib>" at the beginning of the example code.

In 3.9 [basic.types] paragraph 2, replace "memcpy" by "std::memcpy" (the only instance in the footnote and both instances in the example) and replace "memmove" by "std::memmove" in the footnote (see also issue 43).

In 3.9 [basic.types] paragraph 3, replace "memcpy" by "std::memcpy", once in the normative text and once in the example (see also issue 43).

In 3.9.1 [basic.fundamental] paragraph 8 last sentence, replace "numeric_limits" by "std::numeric_limits".

In 5.2.7 [expr.dynamic.cast] paragraph 9 second sentence, replace "bad_cast" by "std::bad_cast".

In 5.2.8 [expr.typeid] paragraph 2, replace "type_info" by "std::type_info" and "bad_typeid" by "std::bad_typeid".

In 5.2.8 [expr.typeid] paragraph 3, replace "type_info" by "std::type_info".

In 5.2.8 [expr.typeid] paragraph 4, replace both instances of "type_info" by "std::type_info".

In 5.3.3 [expr.sizeof] paragraph 6, replace both instances of "size_t" by "std::size_t".

In 5.3.4 [expr.new] paragraph 11 last sentence, replace "size_t" by "std::size_t".

In 5.7 [expr.add] paragraph 6, replace both instances of "ptrdiff_t" by "std::ptrdiff_t".

In 5.7 [expr.add] paragraph 8, replace "ptrdiff_t" by "std::ptrdiff_t".

In 6.6 [stmt.jump] paragraph 2, replace "exit" by "std::exit" and "abort" by "std::abort" in the note.

In 8.2 [dcl.ambig.res] paragraph 3, replace "size_t" by "std::size_t" in the example.

In 8.4 [dcl.fct.def] paragraph 5, replace "printf" by "std::printf" in the note.

In 12.4 [class.dtor] paragraph 13, replace "size_t" by "std::size_t" in the example.

In 12.5 [class.free] paragraph 2, replace all four instances of "size_t" by "std::size_t" in the example.

In 12.5 [class.free] paragraph 6, replace both instances of "size_t" by "std::size_t" in the example.

In 12.5 [class.free] paragraph 7, replace all four instances of "size_t" by "std::size_t" in the two examples.

In 12.7 [class.cdtor] paragraph 4, replace "type_info" by "std::type_info".

In 13.6 [over.built] paragraph 13, replace all five instances of "ptrdiff_t" by "std::ptrdiff_t".