| Document number: | J16/05-0189 = WG21 N1929 |
| Date: | 2005-12-16 |
| Project: | Programming Language C++ |
| Reference: | ISO/IEC IS 14882:2003 |
| Reply to: | William M. Miller |
| Edison Design Group, Inc. | |
| wmm@edg.com |
This document contains the C++ core language issues on which the Committee (J16 + WG21) has not yet acted, that is, issues with status "Ready," "Review," "Drafting," and "Open."
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:
The purpose of these documents is to record the disposition of issues which have come before the Core Language Working Group of the ANSI (J16) and ISO (WG21) C++ Standard Committee.
Issues represent potential defects in the ISO/IEC IS 14882:2003 document and corrected defects in the earlier ISO/IEC 14882:1998 document; they are not necessarily formal ISO Defect Reports (DRs). While some issues will eventually be elevated to DR status, others will be disposed of in other ways. (See Issue Status below.)
The most current public version of this document can be found at http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21. Requests for further information about these documents should include the document number, reference ISO/IEC 14882:2003, and be submitted to the InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS), 1250 Eye Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20005, USA.
Information regarding how to obtain a copy of the C++ Standard, join the Standard Committee, or submit an issue can be found in the C++ FAQ at http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html. Public discussion of the C++ Standard and related issues occurs on newsgroup comp.std.c++.
Issues progress through various statuses as the Core Language Working Group and, ultimately, the full J16 and WG21 committees deliberate and act. For ease of reference, issues are grouped in these documents by their status. Issues have one of the following statuses:
Open: The issue is new or the working group has not yet formed an opinion on the issue. If a Suggested Resolution is given, it reflects the opinion of the issue's submitter, not necessarily that of the working group or the Committee as a whole.
Drafting: Informal consensus has been reached in the working group and is described in rough terms in a Tentative Resolution, although precise wording for the change is not yet available.
Review: Exact wording of a Proposed Resolution is now available for an issue on which the working group previously reached informal consensus.
Ready: The working group has reached consensus that the issue is a defect in the Standard, the Proposed Resolution is correct, and the issue is ready to forward to the full Committee for ratification as a proposed defect report.
DR: The full Committee has approved the item as a proposed defect report. The Proposed Resolution in an issue with this status reflects the best judgment of the Committee at this time regarding the action that will be taken to remedy the defect; however, the current wording of the Standard remains in effect until such time as a Technical Corrigendum or a revision of the Standard is issued by ISO.
TC1: A DR issue included in Technical Corrigendum 1. TC1 is a revision of the Standard issued in 2003.
WP: A DR issue whose resolution is reflected in the current Working Paper. The Working Paper is a draft for a future version of the Standard.
Dup: The issue is identical to or a subset of another issue, identified in a Rationale statement.
NAD: The working group has reached consensus that the issue is not a defect in the Standard. A Rationale statement describes the working group's reasoning.
Extension: The working group has reached consensus that the issue is not a defect in the Standard but is a request for an extension to the language. The working group expresses no opinion on the merits of an issue with this status; however, the issue will be maintained on the list for possible future consideration as an extension proposal.
The standard uses “most derived object” in some places (for example, 1.3.3 defns.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.
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:
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.
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):
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.
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...
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.and also:
The cv-unqualified versions of the object type and of the type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same type.Which is it? "The same" or "the same up to cv-qualifiers"? The second sentence is more generous than the first. Most compilers seem to implement the less restrictive form, so I guess that's what I think we should do.
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-specifieropt 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.
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.
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)is a normal int->T* conversion, with an implementation-defined result.
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.Where is this supported in normative text? It seems that either the footnote or paragraph 8 doesn't reflect the intent.
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):
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.
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]
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.
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 identifieropt { enumerator-list , }
as an alternative definition for the enum-specifier nonterminal
in
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change the grammar in 7.2 dcl.enum paragraph 1 as indicated:
enum-specifier:enum identifieropt { enumerator-listopt }
enum identifieropt { enumerator-list , }
[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]
In 12.2 class.temporary paragraph 5, should binding a reference to the result of a "?" operation, each of whose branches is a temporary, extend both temporaries?
Here's an example:
const SFileName &C = noDir ? SFileName("abc") : SFileName("bcd");
Do the temporaries created by the SFileName conversions survive the end of the full expression?
Notes from 10/00 meeting:
Other problematic examples include cases where the temporary from one branch is a base class of the temporary from the other (i.e., where the implementation must remember which type of temporary must be destroyed), or where one branch is a temporary and the other is not. Similar questions also apply to the comma operator. The sense of the core language working group was that implementations should be required to support these kinds of code.
Notes from the March 2004 meeting:
We decided that the cleanest model is one in which any "?" operation that returns a class rvalue always copies one of its operands to a temporary and returns the temporary as the result of the operation. (Note that this may involve slicing.) An implementation would be free to optimize this using the rules in 12.8 class.copy paragraph 15, and in fact we would expect that in many cases compilers would do such optimizations. For example, the compiler could construct both rvalues in the above example into a single temporary, and thus avoid a copy.
See also issue 446.
Proposed resolution (October, 2004):
This issue is resolved by the resolutions of issue 446.
Note (October, 2005):
This issue was overlooked when issue 446 was moved to “ready” status and was thus inadvertently omitted from the list of issues accepted as Defect Reports at the October, 2005 meeting.
Section 12.2 class.temporary paragraph 5 ends with this "rule":
For the temporary to be destroyed after obj2 is destroyed, when obj2 has static storage, I would say that the reference to the temporary should also have static storage, but that is IMHO not clear from the paragraph.
Example:
void f ()
{
const T1& ref = T1();
static T2 obj2;
...
}
Here the temporary would be destoyed before obj2, contrary to the rule above.
Steve Adamczyk: I agree there's a minor issue here. I think the clause quoted above meant for obj1 and obj2 to have the same storage duration. Replacing "obj2 is an object with static or automatic storage duration" by "obj2 is an object with the same storage duration as obj1" would, I believe, fix the problem.
Notes from October 2004 meeting:
We agreed with Steve Adamczyk's suggestion.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 12.2 class.temporary paragraph 5 as follows:
... In addition, the destruction of temporaries bound to references shall take into account the ordering of destruction of objects with static or automatic storage duration (3.7.1 basic.stc.static, 3.7.2 basic.stc.auto); that is, if obj1 is an objectwith static or automatic storage durationcreated before the temporary is created with the same storage duration as the temporary, the temporary shall be destroyed before obj1 is destroyed; if obj2 is an objectwith static or automatic storage durationcreated after the temporary is created with the same storage duration as the temporary, the temporary shall be destroyed after obj2 is destroyed...
8.5 dcl.init paragraph 10 makes it clear that non-static POD class objects with no initializer are left uninitialized and have an indeterminate initial value:
If no initializer is specified for an object, and the object is of (possibly cv-qualified) non-POD class type (or array thereof), the object shall be default-initialized; if the object is of const-qualified type, the underlying class type shall have a user-declared default constructor. Otherwise, if no initializer is specified for a non-static object, the object and its subobjects, if any, have an indeterminate initial value; if the object or any of its subobjects are of const-qualified type, the program is ill-formed.
12.6 class.init paragraph 1, however, implies that all class objects without initializers, whether POD or not, are default-initialized:
When no initializer is specified for an object of (possibly cv-qualified) class type (or array thereof), or the initializer has the form (), the object is initialized as specified in 8.5 dcl.init. The object is default-initialized if there is no initializer, or value-initialized if the initializer is ().
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Remove the indicated words from 12.6 class.init paragraph 1:
When no initializer is specified for an object of (possibly cv-qualified) class type (or array thereof), or the initializer has the form (), the object is initialized as specified in 8.5 dcl.init.The object is default-initialized if there is no initializer, or value-initialized if the initializer is ().
Lets start with the proposed solution. In 13.5.6 over.ref, replace line ...
postfix-expression -> id-expression.... with the lines ...
postfix-expression -> templateopt id-expression(This then is a copy of the two lines in 5.2 expr.post covering "->dtor")
postfix-expression -> pseudo-destructor-name
Alternatively remove the sentence "It implements class member access using ->" and the syntax line following.
Reasons:
Currently stdc++ is inconsistent when handling expressions of the form "postfixexpression->scalar_type_dtor()": If "postfixexpression" is a pointer to the scalar type, it is OK, but if "postfixexpression" refers to any smart pointer class (e.g. iterator or allocator::pointer) with class specific CLASS::operator->() returning pointer to the scalar type, then it is ill-formed; so while c++98 does allow CLASS::operator->() returning pointer to scalar type, c++98 prohibits any '->'-expression involving this overloaded operator function.
Not only is this behaviour inconsistent, but also when comparing the corresponding chapters of c++pl2 and stdc++98 it looks like an oversight and unintended result. Mapping between stdc++98 and c++pl2:
c++pl2.r.5.2 -> 5.2 [expr.post]For the single line of c++pl2.r.5.2 covering "->dtor", 5.2 [expr.post] has two lines. Analogously c++pl2.r.5.2.4 has been doubled to 5.2.4 [expr.pseudo] and 5.2.5 [expr.ref]. From 13.5.6 [over.ref], the sentence forbiding CLASS::operator->() returning pointer to scalar type has been removed. Only the single line of c++pl2.r.13.4.6 (<-> c++pl2.r.5.2's single line) has not gotten its 2nd line when converted into 13.5.6 [over.ref].
c++pl2.r.5.2.4 -> 5.2.4 [expr.pseudo] + 5.2.5 [expr.ref]
c++pl2.r.13.4 -> 13.3.1.2 [over.match.oper]
c++pl2.r.13.4.6 -> 13.5.6 [over.ref]
Additionally GCC32 does is right (but against 13.5.6 [over.ref]).
AFAICS this would not break old code except compilers like VC7x and Comeau4301.
It does not add new functionality, cause any expression class_type->scalar_type_dtor() even today can be substituted through (*class_type).scalar_type_dtor().
Without this fix, template functions like some_allocator<T>::destroy(p) must use "(*p).~T()" or "(*p).T::~T()" when calling the destructor, otherwise the simpler versions "p->~T()" or "p->T::~T()" could be used.
Sample code, compiled with GCC32, VC7[1] and Comeau4301:
struct A {};//any class
template <class T>
struct PTR
{
T& operator* () const;
T* operator-> () const;
};
template <class T>
void f ()
{
{
T* p ;
p = new T ;
(*p).T::~T() ;//OK
p = new T ;
(*p).~T() ;//OK
p = new T ;
p->T::~T() ;//OK
p = new T ;
p->~T() ;//OK
}
{
PTR<T> p = PTR<T>() ;
(*p).T::~T() ;//OK
(*p).~T() ;//OK
p.operator->() ;//OK !!!
p->T::~T() ;//GCC32: OK; VC7x,Com4301: OK for A; ERROR w/ int
p->~T() ;//GCC32: OK; VC7x,Com4301: OK for A; ERROR w/ int
}
}
void test ()
{
f <A> ();
f <int>();
}
Proposed resolution (April, 2005):
Change 13.5.6 over.ref paragraph 1 as indicated:
operator-> shall be a non-static member function taking no parameters. It implements the class member access
usingsyntax that uses ->postfix-expression -> templateopt id-expression
postfix-expression -> pseudo-destructor-nameAn expression x->m is interpreted as (x.operator->())->m for a class object x of type T if T::operator->() exists and if the operator is selected as the best match function by the overload resolution mechanism (13.3 over.match).
The example in 14.7.1 temp.inst paragraph 4 has a typographical error: the third parameter of function g should be D<double>* ppp, but it is missing the *:
template <class T> class B { /* ... */ };
template <class T> class D : public B<T> { /* ... */ };
void f(void*);
void f(B<int >*);
void g(D<int>* p, D<char>* pp, D<double> ppp)
{
f(p); // instantiation of D<int> required: call f(B<int>*)
B<char>* q = pp; // instantiation of D<char> required:
// convert D<char>* to B<char>*
delete ppp; // instantiation of D<double> required
}
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
As suggested.
According to 14.8.2 temp.deduct paragraph 2,
If a substitution in a template parameter or in the function type of the function template results in an invalid type, type deduction fails.
That would seem to apply to cases like the following:
template <class T> T f(T&){}
void f(const int*){}
int main() {
int a[5];
f(a);
}
Here, the return type of f is deduced as int[5], which is invalid according to 8.3.5 dcl.fct paragraph 6. The outcome of this example, then, should presumably be that type deduction fails and overload resolution selects the non-template function. However, the list of reasons in 14.8.2 temp.deduct for which type deduction can fail does not include function and array types as a function return type. Those cases should be added to the list.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change the last sub-bullet of 14.8.2 temp.deduct paragraph 2 as indicated:
Attempting to create a function type in which a parameter has a type of void, or in which the return type is a function type or array type.
It is not clear how to handle the following example:
struct S {
template <typename T> S(const T&);
};
void f(const S&);
void f(int);
void g() {
enum E { e };
f(e); // ill-formed?
}
Three possibilities suggest themselves:
Fail during overload resolution. In order to perform overload resolution for the call to f, the declaration of the required specialization of the S constructor must be instantiated. This instantiation uses a local type and is thus ill-formed (14.3.1 temp.arg.type paragraph 2), rendering the example as a whole ill-formed, as well.
Treat this as a type-deduction failure. Although it is not listed currently among the causes of type-deduction failure in 14.8.2 temp.deduct paragraph 2, it could plausibly be argued that instantiating a function declaration with a local type as a template type-parameter falls under the rubric of “If a substitution in a template parameter or in the function type of the function template results in an invalid type” and thus should be a type-deduction failure. The result would be that the example is well-formed because f(const S&) would be removed from the list of viable functions.
Fail only if the function selected by overload resolution requires instantiation with a local type. This approach would require that the diagnostic resulting from the instantiation of the function type during overload resolution be suppressed and either regenerated or regurgitated once overload resolution is complete. (The example would be well-formed under this approach because f(int) would be selected as the best match.)
(See also issue 489.)
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The question in the original example was whether there should be an error, even though the uninstantiable template was not needed for calling the best-matching function. The broader issue is whether a user would prefer to get an error or to call a “worse” non-template function in such cases. For example:
template<typename T> void f(T);
void f(int);
void g() {
enum E { e };
f(e); // call f(int) or get an error?
}
It was observed that the type deduction rules are intended to model, albeit selectively, the other rules of the language. This would argue in favor of the second approach, a type-deduction failure, and the consensus of the group was that the incremental benefit of other approaches was not enough to outweigh the additional complexity of specification and implementation.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Add a new sub-bullet following bullet 3, sub-bullet 7 ("Attempting to give an invalid type to a non-type template parameter") of 14.8.2 temp.deduct paragraph 2:
Attempting to use a local or unnamed type as the value of a template type parameter.
Additional note (December, 2005):
The Evolution Working Group is currently considering an extension that would effectively give linkage to some (but perhaps not all) types that currently have no linkage. If the proposed resolution above is adopted and then later a change along the lines that the EWG is considering were also adopted, the result would be a silent change in the result of overload resolution, because the newly-acceptable specializations would become part of the overload set. It is not clear whether that possibility is sufficient reason to delay adoption of this resolution or not.
I have noticed a couple of confusing and overlapping passages dealing with copy elision. The first is 15.1 except.throw paragraph 5:
If the use of the temporary object can be eliminated without changing the meaning of the program except for the execution of constructors and destructors associated with the use of the temporary object (12.2 class.temporary), then the exception in the handler can be initialized directly with the argument of the throw expression.
The other is 15.3 except.handle paragraph 17:
If the use of a temporary object can be eliminated without changing the meaning of the program except for execution of constructors and destructors associated with the use of the temporary object, then the optional name can be bound directly to the temporary object specified in a throw-expression causing the handler to be executed.
I think these two passages are intended to describe the same optimization. However, as is often the case where something is described twice, there are significant differences. One is just different terminology — is “the exception in the handler” the same as “the object declared in the exception-declaration or, if the exception-declaration does not specify a name, a temporary object of that type” (15.3 except.handle paragraph 16)?
More significant, there is a difference in which kinds of throw-expressions are eligible for the optimization. In 15.1 except.throw paragraph 5, it appears that any object is a candidate, while in 15.3 except.handle paragraph 17 the thrown object must be a temporary (“the temporary object specified in a throw-expression”). For example, it's not clear looking at these two passages whether the copy of a local automatic can be elided. I.e., by analogy with the return value optimization described in 12.8 class.copy paragraph 15:
X x;
return x; // copy may be elided
X x;
throw x; // unclear whether copy may be elided
Which brings up another point: 12.8 class.copy paragraph 15 purports to be an exhaustive list in which copy elision is permitted even if the constructor and/or destructor have side effects; however, these two passages describe another case that is not mentioned in 12.8 class.copy paragraph 15.
A final point of confusion: in the unoptimized abstract machine, there are actually two copies in throwing and handling an exception: the copy from the object being thrown to the exception object, and the copy from the exception object to the object or temporary in the exception-declaration. 15.1 except.throw paragraph 5 speaks only of eliminating the exception object, copying the thrown object directly into the exception-declaration object, while 15.3 except.handle paragraph 17 refers to directly binding the exception-declaration object to the thrown object (if it's a temporary). Shouldn't these be separated, with a throw of an automatic object or temporary being like the return value optimization and the initialization of the object/temporary in the exception-declaration being a separate optimizable step (which could, presumably, be combined to effectively alias the exception-declaration onto the thrown object)?
(See paper J16/04-0165 = WG21 N1725.)
Proposed resolution (April, 2005):
Add two items to the bulleted list in 12.8 class.copy paragraph 15 as follows:
This elision of copy operations is permitted in the following circumstances (which may be combined to eliminate multiple copies):
in a return statement in a function with a class return type, when the expression is the name of a non-volatile automatic object with the same cv-unqualified type as the function return type, the copy operation can be omitted by constructing the automatic object directly into the function’s return value
in a throw-expression, when the operand is the name of a non-volatile automatic object, the copy operation from the operand to the exception object (15.1 except.throw) can be omitted by constructing the automatic object directly into the exception object
when a temporary class object that has not been bound to a reference (12.2 class.temporary) would be copied to a class object with the same cv-unqualified type, the copy operation can be omitted by constructing the temporary object directly into the target of the omitted copy
when the exception-declaration of an exception handler (clause 15 except) declares an object of the same type (except for cv-qualification) as the exception object (15.1 except.throw), the copy operation can be omitted by treating the exception-declaration as an alias for the exception object if the meaning of the program will be unchanged except for the execution of constructors and destructors for the object declared by the exception-declaration
Change 15.1 except.throw paragraph 5 as follows:
If the use of the temporary object can be eliminated without changing the meaning of the program except for the execution of constructors and destructors associated with the use of the temporary object (12.2 class.temporary), then the exception in the handler can be initialized directly with the argument of the throw expression.When the thrown object is a class object,andthe copy constructorused to initialize the temporary copy is notand the destructor shall be accessible,the program is ill-formed (even when the temporary object could otherwise be eliminated)even if the copy operation is elided (12.8 class.copy).Similarly, if the destructor for that object is not accessible, the program is ill-formed (even when the temporary object could otherwise be eliminated).
Change 15.3 except.handle paragraph 17 as follows:
If the use of a temporary object can be eliminated without changing the meaning of the program except for execution of constructors and destructors associated with the use of the temporary object, then the optional name can be bound directly to the temporary object specified in a throw-expression causing the handler to be executed.The copy constructor and destructor associated with the object shall be accessible evenwhen the temporary object is eliminatedif the copy operation is elided (12.8 class.copy).
The current wording of 2.13.2 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 (October, 2005):
Change the next-to-last sentence of 2.13.2 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 5 are conditionally-supported, with implementation-defined semantics.
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 (October, 2005):
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 qualified-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]
I believe this program is invalid:
struct A {
};
struct C {
struct A {};
void f ();
};
void C::f () {
::A *a;
a->~A ();
}
The problem is that 3.4.5
basic.lookup.classref says that you have to look
up A in both the context of the pointed-to-type (i.e.,
::A), and
in the context of the postfix-expression (i.e., the body of C::f), and
that if the name is found in both places it must name the same type in
both places.
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 (October, 2005):
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.andIf 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 upin the context of the entire postfix-expression andin 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.]
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.
An example in 3.5 basic.link paragraph 6 creates two file-scope variables with the same name, one with internal linkage and one with external.
static void f();
static int i = 0; //1
void g() {
extern void f(); // internal linkage
int i; //2: i has no linkage
{
extern void f(); // internal linkage
extern int i; //3: external linkage
}
}
Is this really what we want? C99 has 6.2.2.7/7, which gives undefined behavior for having an identifier appear with internal and external linkage in the same translation unit. C++ doesn't seem to have an equivalent.
Notes from October 2003 meeting:
We agree that this is an error. We propose to leave the example but change the comment to indicate that line //3 has undefined behavior, and elsewhere add a normative rule giving such a case undefined behavior.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 3.5 basic.link paragraph 6 as indicated:
...Otherwise, if no matching entity is found, the block scope entity receives external linkage. If, within a translation unit, the same entity is declared with both internal and external linkage, the behavior is undefined.
[Example:
static void f(); static int i = 0; // 1 void g () { extern void f (); // internal linkage int i; // 2: i has no linkage { extern void f (); // internal linkage extern int i; // 3: external linkage } }
There are three objects named i in this program. The object with internal linkage introduced by the declaration in global scope (line //1 ), the object with automatic storage duration and no linkage introduced by the declaration on line //2, and the object with static storage duration and external linkage introduced by the declaration on line //3.Without the declaration at line //2, the declaration at line //3 would link with the declaration at line //1. But because the declaration with internal linkage is hidden, //3 is given external linkage, resulting in a linkage conflict. —end example]
According to 3.7.3.1 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 (18.4.2.1 lib.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 (October, 2005):
Change the last sentence of 3.7.3.1 basic.stc.dynamic.allocation paragraph 3 as indicated:
Any other allocation function that fails to allocate storage shall only indicate failure by throwing an exception ofclass std::bad_alloc (18.4.2.1 lib.bad.alloc) or a class derived from std::bad_alloca type that would match a handler (15.3 except.handle) of type std::bad_alloc (18.4.2.1 lib.bad.alloc).
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):
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...
Change 5.2.9 expr.static.cast paragraph 2 as indicated:
...and B isnotneither a virtual base class of D nor a base class of a virtual base class of D...
Change 5.2.9 expr.static.cast paragraph 9 as indicated:
...and B isnotneither a virtual base class of D nor a base class of a virtual base class of D...
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 (18.7 lib.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.
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:
casting from void pointer to incomplete type
struct A;
struct B;
void *v;
A *a = (A*)v; // allowed to choose reinterpret_cast
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
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
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
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 isaan inheritance relationship between the source and destination classes, whether the static_cast or reinterpret_cast interpretation is used is unspecified. [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]
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-callfunction call (including new-expressions and delete-expressions),orcomma operators, or throw-expressions shall not be used.
Note: this sentence is also changed by the resolution of issue 530.
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.)
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
onlybe used only indeclarationsthe declaration of a non-static class memberfunctions that appear within afunction that appears within the member-specification ofaits class definition; see10.3 class.virtual .The explicit specifier shall be used only in
declarationsthe declaration ofconstructorsa constructor withinaits class definition; see 12.3.1 class.conv.ctor.
7.1.5.2 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 7.1.5.2 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 whetherbit-fields andobjects 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 objectsand bit-fieldsto be signed; it is redundantwith other integral typesin other contexts. —end note]o
8.3.2 dcl.ref paragraph 4 says:
A reference shall be initialized to refer to a valid object or function. [Note: in particular, a null reference cannot exist in a well-defined program, because the only way to create such a reference would be to bind it to the "object" obtained by dereferencing a null pointer, which causes undefined behavior ...]
What is a "valid" object? In particular the expression "valid object" seems to exclude uninitialized objects, but the response to Core Issue 363 clearly says that's not the intent. This is an example (overloading construction on constness of *this) by John Potter, which I think is supposed to be legal C++ though it binds references to objects that are not initialized yet:
struct Fun {
int x, y;
Fun (int x, Fun const&) : x(x), y(42) { }
Fun (int x, Fun&) : x(x), y(0) { }
};
int main () {
const Fun f1 (13, f1);
Fun f2 (13, f2);
cout << f1.y << " " << f2.y << "\n";
}
Suggested resolution: Changing the final part of 8.3.2 dcl.ref paragraph 4 to:
A reference shall be initialized to refer to an object or function.
From its point of declaration on (see 3.3.1
basic.scope.pdecl)
its name is an lvalue
which refers to that object or function. The reference may be
initialized to refer to an uninitialized object but, in that case,
it is usable in limited ways (3.8
basic.life, paragraph 6)
[Note: On the other hand, a declaration like this:
int & ref = *(int*)0;
is ill-formed because ref will not refer to any object or function
]
I also think a "No diagnostic is required." would better be added (what about something like int& r = r; ?)
Proposed Resolution (October, 2004):
(Note: the following wording depends on the proposed resolution for issue 232.)
Change 8.3.2 dcl.ref paragraph 4 as follows:
A reference shall be initialized to refer to a valid object or function.If an lvalue to which a reference is directly bound designates neither an existing object or function of an appropriate type (8.5.3 dcl.init.ref), nor a region of memory of suitable size and alignment to contain an object of the reference's type (1.8 intro.object, 3.8 basic.life, 3.9 basic.types), the behavior is undefined. [Note: in particular, a null reference cannot exist in a well-defined program, because the only way to create such a reference would be to bind it to the“object”empty lvalue obtained by dereferencing a null pointer, whichcauses undefined behavior. Asdoes not designate an object or function. Also, as described in 9.6 class.bit, a reference cannot be bound directly to a bit-field. ]The name of a reference shall not be used in its own initializer. Any other use of a reference before it is initialized results in undefined behavior. [Example:
int& f(int&); int& g(); extern int& ir3; int* ip = 0; int& ir1 = *ip; // undefined behavior: null pointer int& ir2 = f(ir3); // undefined behavior: ir3 not yet initialized int& ir3 = g(); int& ir4 = f(ir4); // ill-formed: ir4 used in its own initializer—end example]
Rationale: The proposed wording goes beyond the specific concerns of the issue, primarily in response to messages 10498-10506 on the core reflector. It was noted that, while the current wording makes cases like int& r = r; ill-formed (because r in the initializer does not "refer to a valid object"), an inappropriate initialization can only be detected, if at all, at runtime and thus "undefined behavior" is a more appropriate treatment. Nevertheless, it was deemed desirable to continue to require a diagnostic for obvious compile-time cases.
It was also noted that the current Standard does not say anything about using a reference before it is initialized. It seemed reasonable to address both of these concerns in the same wording proposed to resolve this issue.
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The CWG decided that whether to require an implementation to diagnose initialization of a reference to itself should be handled as a separate issue (504) and also suggested referring to “storage” instead of “memory” (because 1.8 intro.object defines an object as a “region of storage”).
Proposed Resolution (April, 2005):
(Note: the following wording depends on the proposed resolution for issue 232.)
Change 8.3.2 dcl.ref paragraph 4 as follows:
A reference shall be initialized to refer to a valid object or function.If an lvalue to which a reference is directly bound designates neither an existing object or function of an appropriate type (8.5.3 dcl.init.ref), nor a region of storage of suitable size and alignment to contain an object of the reference's type (1.8 intro.object, 3.8 basic.life, 3.9 basic.types), the behavior is undefined. [Note: in particular, a null reference cannot exist in a well-defined program, because the only way to create such a reference would be to bind it to the“object”empty lvalue obtained by dereferencing a null pointer, whichcauses undefined behavior. Asdoes not designate an object or function. Also, as described in 9.6 class.bit, a reference cannot be bound directly to a bit-field. ]Any use of a reference before it is initialized results in undefined behavior. [Example:
int& f(int&); int& g(); extern int& ir3; int* ip = 0; int& ir1 = *ip; // undefined behavior: null pointer int& ir2 = f(ir3); // undefined behavior: ir3 not yet initialized int& ir3 = g(); int& ir4 = f(ir4); // undefined behavior: ir4 used in its own initializer—end example]
According to the definition of value initialization (8.5 dcl.init paragraph 5), non-union class types without user-declared constructors are value-initialized by value-initializing each of their members rather than by executing the (generated) default constructor. However, a number of other items in the Standard are described in relationship to the execution of the constructor:
12.4 class.dtor paragraph 6: “Bases and members are destroyed in the reverse order of the completion of their constructor.” If a given base or member is value-initialized without running its constructor, is it destroyed? (For that matter, paragraph 10 refers to “constructed” objects; is an object that is value-initialized without invoking a constructor “constructed?”)
15.2 except.ctor paragraph 2: “An object that is partially constructed or partially destroyed will have destructors executed for all of its fully constructed subobjects, that is, for subobjects for which the constructor has completed execution...”
3.8 basic.life paragraph 1: The lifetime of an object begins when “the constructor call has completed.” (In the TC1 wording — “if T is a class type with a non-trivial constructor (12.1 class.ctor), the constructor call has completed” — the lifetime of some value-initialized objects never began; in the current wording — “the constructor invoked to create the object is non-trivial” — the lifetime begins before any of the members are initialized.)
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Add the indicated words to 8.5 dcl.init paragraph 6:
A program that calls for default-initialization or value-initialization of an entity of reference type is ill-formed. If T is a cv-qualified type, the cv-unqualified version of T is used for these definitions of zero-initialization, default-initialization, and value-initialization. Even when value-initialization of an object does not call that object's constructor, the object is deemed to have been fully constructed once its initialization is complete and thus subject to provisions of this International Standard applying to “constructed” objects, objects “for which the constructor has completed execution,” etc.
The current wording of 8.5.1 dcl.init.aggr paragraph 8 requires that
An initializer for an aggregate member that is an empty class shall have the form of an empty initializer-list {}.
This is overly constraining. There is no reason that the following should be ill-formed:
struct S { };
S s;
S arr[1] = { s };
Mike Miller: The wording of 8.5.1 dcl.init.aggr paragraph 8 is unclear. “An aggregate member” would most naturally mean “a member of an aggregate.” In context, however, I think it must mean “a member [of an aggregate] that is an aggregate”, that is, a subaggregate. Members of aggregates need not themselves be aggregates (cf paragraph 13 and 12.6.1 class.expl.init); it cannot be the case that an object of an empty class with a user-declared constructor must be initialized with {} when it is a member of an aggregate. This wording should be clarified, regardless of the decision on Nathan's point.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 413.
The proposal says that value is true if "T is an empty class (10)". Clause 10 doesn't define an empty class, although it has a note that says a base class may "be of zero size (clause 9)" 9/3 says "Complete objects and member subobjects of class type shall have nonzero size." This has a footnote, which says "Base class subobjects are not so constrained."
The standard uses the term "empty class" in two places (8.5.1 dcl.init.aggr), but neither of those places defines it. It's also listed in the index, which refers to the page that opens clause 9, i.e. the nonzero size stuff cited above.
So, what's the definition of "empty class" that determines whether the predicate is_empty is true?
The one place where it's used is 8.5.1 dcl.init.aggr paragraph 8, which says (roughly paraphrased) that an aggregate initializer for an empty class must be "{}", and when such an initializer is used for an aggregate that is not an empty class the members are default-initialized. In this context it's pretty clear what's meant. In the type traits proposal it's not as clear, and it was probably intended to have a different meaning. The boost implementation, after it eliminates non-class types, determines whether the trait is true by comparing the size of a class derived from T to the size of an otherwise-identical class that is not derived from T.
Howard Hinnant: is_empty was created to find out whether a type could be derived from and have the empty base class optimization successfully applied. It was created in part to support compressed_pair which attempts to optimize away the space for one of its members in an attempt to reduce spatial overhead. An example use is:
template <class T, class Compare = std::less<T> >
class SortedVec
{
public:
...
private:
T* data_;
compressed_pair<Compare, size_type> comp_;
Compare& comp() {return comp_.first();}
const Compare& comp() const {return comp_.first();}
size_type& sz() {return comp_.second();}
size_type sz() const {return comp_.second();}
};
Here the compare function is optimized away via the empty base optimization if Compare turns out to be an "empty" class. If Compare turns out to be a non-empty class, or a function pointer, the space is not optimized away. is_empty is key to making this work.
This work built on Nathan's article: http://www.cantrip.org/emptyopt.html.
Clark Nelson: I've been looking at issue 413, and I've reached the conclusion that there are two different kinds of empty class. A class containing only one or more anonymous bit-field members is empty for purposes of aggregate initialization, but not (necessarily) empty for purposes of empty base-class optimization.
Of course we need to add a definition of emptiness for purposes of aggregate initialization. Beyond that, there are a couple of questions:
Notes from the October, 2005 meeting:
There are only two places in the Standard where the phrase “empty class” appears, both in 8.5.1 dcl.init.aggr paragraph 8. Because it is not clear whether the definition of “empty for initialization purposes” is suitable for use in defining the is_empty predicate, it would be better just to avoid using the phrase in the language clauses. The requirements of 8.5.1 dcl.init.aggr paragraph 8 appear to be redundant; paragraph 6 says that an initializer-list must have no more initializers than the number of elements to initialize, so an empty class already requires an empty initializer-list, and using an empty initializer-list with a non-empty class is covered adequately by paragraph 7's description of the handling of an initializer-list with fewer initializers than the number of members to initialize.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change
Static data members and anonymous bit fields are not considered members of the class for purposes of aggregate initialization. [Example:
struct A { int i; static int s; int j; int :17; int k; } a = { 1 , 2 , 3 };Here, the second initializer 2 initializes a.j and not the static data member A::s, and the third initializer 3 initializes a.k and not the padding before it. —end example]
Delete 8.5.1 dcl.init.aggr paragraph 8:
An initializer for an aggregate member that is an empty class shall have the form of an empty initializer-list {}. [Example:
struct S { }; struct A { S s; int i; } a = { { } , 3 };—end example] An empty initializer-list can be used to initialize any aggregate. If the aggregate is not an empty class, then each member of the aggregate shall be initialized with a value of the form T() (5.2.3 expr.type.conv), where T represents the type of the uninitialized member.
This resolution also resolves issue 491.
Additional note (October, 2005):
Deleting 8.5.1 dcl.init.aggr paragraph 8 altogether may not be a good idea. It would appear that, in its absence, the initializer elision rules of paragraph 11 would allow the initializer for a in the preceding example to be written { 3 } (because the empty-class member s would consume no initializers from the list).
9.3.2 class.this paragraph 1, which specifies the meaning of the keyword 'this', seems to limit its usage to the *body* of non-static member functions. However 'this' is also usable in ctor-initializers which, according to the grammar in 8.4 dcl.fct.def par. 1, are not part of the body.
Proposed resolution: Changing the first part of 9.3.2 class.this par. 1 to:
In the body of a nonstatic (9.3) member function or in a ctor-initializer (12.6.2), the keyword this is a non-lvalue expression whose value is the address of the object for which the function is called.
NOTE: I'm talking of constructors as functions that are "called"; there have been discussions on c.l.c++.m as to whether constructors are "functions" and to whether this terminology is correct or not; I think it is both intuitive and in agreement with the standard wording.
Steve Adamczyk: See also issue 397, which is defining a new syntax term for the body of a function including the ctor-initializers.
Notes from the March 2004 meeting:
This will be resolved when issue 397 is resolved.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 8.4 dcl.fct.def paragraph 1 as indicated:
Function definitions have the form
function-definition:
decl-specifier-seqopt declarator
ctor-initializeroptfunction-bodyfunction-body:
decl-specifier-seqopt declarator function-try-blockctor-initializer compound-statement
function-try-block
An informal reference to the body of a function should be interpreted as a reference to the nonterminal function-body.
Change the definition of function-try-block in 15 except paragraph 1:
function-try-block:
try ctor-initializeropt
function-bodycompound-statement handler-seq
Change 3.3.6 basic.scope.class paragraph 1, point 1, as indicated:
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 functionbodies,bodies and default arguments, and constructor ctor-initializersin that class (including such things in nested classes).
Change 3.3.6 basic.scope.class paragraph 1, point 5, as indicated:
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 bodyand, for constructor functions (12.1 class.ctor), the ctor-initializer () and any portion of the declarator part of such definitions which follows the identifier, including a parameter-declaration-clause and any default arguments (8.3.6 dcl.fct.default). [Example:...12.6.2 class.base.init )
Change footnote 32 in 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual paragraph 8 as indicated:
That is, an unqualified name that occurs, for instance, in a type or default argument expression in theparameter-declaration-clause,parameter-declaration-clause or in the function body, or in an expression of a mem-initializer in a constructor definition.
Change 5.1 expr.prim paragraph 3 as indicated:
...The keyword this shall be used only inside a non-static class member function body (9.3 class.mfct)or in a constructor mem-initializer (12.6.2 class.base.init)...
Change 9.2 class.mem paragraph 2 as indicated:
...Within the class member-specification, the class is regarded as complete within function bodies, default arguments, and exception-specifications, and constructor ctor-initializers(including such things in nested classes)...
Change 9.2 class.mem paragraph 9 as indicated:
Each occurrence in an expression of the name of a non-static data member or non-static member function of a class shall be expressed as a class member access (5.2.5 expr.ref), except when it appears in the formation of a pointer to member (5.3.1 expr.unary.op), oror when it appears in the body of a non-static member function of its class or of a class derived from its class (9.3.1 class.mfct.nonstatic), or when it appears in a mem-initializer for a constructor for its class or for a class derived from its class (12.6.2 class.base.init).
Change the note in 9.3 class.mfct paragraph 5 as indicated:
[Note: a name used in a member function definition (that is, in the parameter-declaration-clause including the default arguments (8.3.6 dcl.fct.default), oror in the member function body, or, for a constructor function (12.1 class.ctor), in a mem-initializer expression (12.6.2 class.base.init)) is looked up as described in 3.4 basic.lookup. —end note]
Change 9.3.1 class.mfct.nonstatic paragraph 1 as indicated:
...A non-static member function may also be called directly using the function call syntax (5.2.2 expr.call, 13.3.1.1 over.match.call) from within the body of a member function of its class or of a class derived from its class.
- from within the body of a member function of its class or of a class derived from its class, or
- from a mem-initializer (12.6.2 class.base.init) for a constructor for its class or for a class derived from its class.
Change 9.3.1 class.mfct.nonstatic paragraph 3 as indicated:
When an id-expression (5.1 expr.prim) that is not part of a class member access syntax (5.2.5 expr.ref) and not used to form a pointer to member (5.3.1 expr.unary.op) is used in the body of a non-static member function of class Xor used in the mem-initializer for a constructor of class X, if name lookup (3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual) resolves the name in the id-expression to a non-static non-type member of class X or of a base class of X, the id-expression is transformed into a class member access expression (5.2.5 expr.ref) using (*this) (9.3.2 class.this) as the postfix-expression to the left of the . operator...
Change 12.1 class.ctor paragraph 7 as indicated:
...The implicitly-defined default constructor performs the set of initializations of the class that would be performed by a user-written default constructor for that class withan empty mem-initializer-listno ctor-initializer (12.6.2 class.base.init) and an emptyfunction bodycompound-statement...
Change 12.6.2 class.base.init paragraph 4 as indicated:
...After the call to a constructor for class X has completed, if a member of X is neither specified in the constructor’s mem-initializers, nor default-initialized, nor value-initialized, nor given a value during execution of the compound-statement of the body of the constructor, the member has indeterminate value.
Change the last bullet of 12.6.2 class.base.init paragraph 5 as indicated:
Finally, the body compound statement of the
constructor body is executed.
Change 15 except paragraph 4 as indicated:
A function-try-block associates a handler-seq with the ctor-initializer, if present, and the
function-bodycompound-statement. An exception thrown during the execution of the initializer expressions in the ctor-initializer or during the execution of thefunction-bodycompound-statement transfers control to a handler in a function-try-block in the same way as an exception thrown during the execution of a try-block transfers control to other handlers. [Example:int f(int); class C { int i; double d; public: C(int, double); }; C::C(int ii, double id) try : i(f(ii)), d(id) { // constructorfunction bodystatements } catch (...) { // handles exceptions thrown from the ctor-initializer // and from the constructorfunction bodystatements }—end example]
Change 15.2 except.ctor paragraph 2 as indicated:
When an exception is thrown, control is transferred to the nearest handler with a matching type (15.3 except.handle); “nearest” means the handler for which thecompound-statement,compound-statement or ctor-initializer, or function-bodyfollowing the try keyword was most recently entered by the thread of control and not yet exited.
As a result of the resolution of core issue 48, the current C++ standard is not in sync with existing practice and with user expectations as far as definitions of static data members having const integral or const enumeration type are concerned. Basically what current implementations do is to require a definition only if the address of the constant is taken. Example:
void f() {
std::string s;
...
// current implementations don't require a definition
if (s.find('a', 3) == std::string::npos) {
...
}
To the letter of the standard, though, the above requires a definition of npos, since the expression std::string::npos is potentially evaluated. I think this problem would be easily solved with simple changes to 9.4.2 class.static.data paragraph 4, 9.4.2 class.static.data paragraph 5 and 3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 3.
Suggested resolution:
Replace 9.4.2 class.static.data paragraph 4 with:
If a static data member is of const integral or const enumeration type, its declaration in the class definition can specify a constant-initializer which shall be [note1] an integral constant expression (5.19). In that case, the member can appear in integral constant expressions. No definition of the member is required, unless an lvalue expression that designates it is potentially evaluated and either used as operand to the built-in unary & operator [note 2] or directly bound to a reference.
If a definition exists, it shall be at namespace scope and shall not contain an initializer.
In 9.4.2 class.static.data paragraph 5 change
There shall be exactly one definition of a static data member that is used in a program; no diagnostic is required; see 3.2.
to
Except as allowed by 9.4.2 par. 4, there shall be exactly one definition of a static data member that is potentially evaluated (3.2) in a program; no diagnostic is required.
In 3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 3 add, at the beginning:
Except for the omission allowed by 9.4.2, par. 4, ...
[note 1] Actually it shall be a "= followed by a constant-expression". This could probably be an editorial fix, rather than a separate DR.
[note 2] Note that this is the case when reinterpret_cast-ing to a reference, like in
struct X { static const int value = 0; };
const char & c = reinterpret_cast<const char&>(X::value);
See 5.2.10
expr.reinterpret.cast/10
More information, in response to a question about why issue 48 does not resolve the problem:
The problem is that the issue was settled in a way that solves much less than it was supposed to solve; that's why I decided to file, so to speak, a DR on a DR.
I understand this may seem a little 'audacious' on my part, but please keep reading. Quoting from the text of DR 48 (emphasis mine):
Originally, all static data members still had to be defined outside the class whether they were used or not.
But that restriction was supposed to be lifted [...]
In particular, if an integral/enum const static data member is initialized within the class, and its address is never taken, we agreed that no namespace-scope definition was required.
The corresponding resolution doesn't reflect this intent, with the definition being still required in most situations anyway: it's enough that the constant appears outside a place where constants are required (ignoring the obvious cases of sizeof and typeid) and you have to provide a definition. For instance:
struct X {
static const int c = 1;
};
void f(int n)
{
if (n == X::c) // <-- potentially evaluated
...
}
<start digression>
Most usages of non-enum BOOST_STATIC_COSTANTs, for instance, are (or were, last time I checked) non-conforming. If you recall, Paul Mensonides pointed out that the following template
// map_integral
template<class T, T V> struct map_integral : identity<T> {
static const T value = V;
};
template<class T, T V> const T map_integral<T, V>::value;
whose main goal is to map the same couples (type, value) to the same storage, also solves the definition problem. In this usage it is an excellent hack (if your compiler is good enough), but IMHO still a hack on a language defect.
<end digression>
What I propose is to solve the issue according to the original intent, which is also what users expect and all compilers that I know of already do. Or, in practice, we would have a rule that exists only as words in a standard document.
PS: I've sent a copy of this to Mr. Adamczyk to clarify an important doubt that occurred to me while writing this reply:
if no definition is provided for an integral static const data member is that member an object? Paragraph 1.8/1 seems to say no, and in fact it's difficult to think it is an object without assuming/pretending that a region of storage exists for it (an object *is* a region of storage according to the standard).
I would think that when no definition is required we have to assume that it could be a non-object. In that case there's nothing in 3.2 which says what 'used' means for such an entity and the current wording would thus be defective. Also, since the name of the member is an lvalue and 3.10/2 says an lvalue refers to an object we would have another problem.
OTOH the standard could pretend it is always an object (though the compiler can optimize it away) and in this case it should probably make a special case for it in 3.2/2.
Notes from the March 2004 meeting:
We sort of like this proposal, but we don't feel it has very high priority. We're not going to spend time discussing it, but if we get drafting for wording we'll review it.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change the first two sentences of 3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 2 from:
An expression is potentially evaluated unless it appears where an integral constant expression is required (see 5.19 expr.const), is the operand of the sizeof operator (5.3.3 expr.sizeof), or is the operand of the typeid operator and the expression does not designate an lvalue of polymorphic class type (5.2.8 expr.typeid). An object or non-overloaded function is used if its name appears in a potentially-evaluated expression.
to
An expression that is the operand of the sizeof operator (5.3.3 expr.sizeof) is unevaluated, as is an expression that is the operand of the typeid operator if it is not an lvalue of a polymorphic class type (5.2.8 expr.typeid); all other expressions are potentially evaluated. 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 an integral constant expression (5.19 expr.const) and the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion (4.1 conv.lval) is immediately applied.
Change the first sentence of 9.4.2 class.static.data paragraph 2 as indicated:
If a static data member is of const integral or const enumeration type, its declaration in the class definition can specify a constant-initializerwhichwhose constant-expression shall be an integral constant expression (5.19 expr.const).
Section 9.6 class.bit paragraph 4 needs to be more specific about the signedness of bit fields of enum type. How much leeway does an implementation have in choosing the signedness of a bit field? In particular, does the phrase "large enough to hold all the values of the enumeration" mean "the implementation decides on the signedness, and then we see whether all the values will fit in the bit field", or does it require the implementation to make the bit field signed or unsigned if that's what it takes to make it "large enough"?
(See also issue 172.)
Note (March, 2005): Clark Nelson observed that there is variation among implementations on this point.
Notes from April, 2005 meeting:
Although implementations enjoy a great deal of latitude in handling bit-fields, it was deemed more user-friendly to ensure that the example in paragraph 4 will work by requiring implementations to use an unsigned underlying type if the enumeration type has no negative values. (If the implementation is allowed to choose a signed representation for such bit-fields, the comparison against TRUE will be false.)
In addition, it was observed that there is an apparent circularity between 7.2 dcl.enum paragraph 7 and 9.6 class.bit paragraph 4 that should be resolved.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Replace 7.2 dcl.enum paragraph 7, deleting the embedded footnote 85, with the following:
For an enumeration where emin is the smallest enumerator and emax is the largest, the values of the enumeration are the values in the range bmin to bmax, defined as follows: Let K be 1 for a two's complement representation and 0 for a one's complement or sign-magnitude representation. bmax is the smallest value greater than or equal to max(|emin|-K,|emax|) and equal to 2M-1, where M is a non-negative integer. bmin is zero if emin is non-negative and -(bmax+K) otherwise. The size of the smallest bit-field large enough to hold all the values of the enumeration type is max(M,1) if bmin is zero and M+1 otherwise. It is possible to define an enumeration that has values not defined by any of its enumerators.
Issue 298, recently approved, affirms that cv-qualified class types can be used as nested-name-specifiers. Should the same be true for base-specifiers?
Rationale (April, 2005):
The resolution of issue 298 added new text to 9.1 class.name paragraph 5 making it clear that a typedef that names a cv-qualified class type is a class-name. Because the definition of base-specifier simply refers to class-name, it is already the case that cv-qualified class types are permitted as base-specifiers.
Additional notes (June, 2005):
It's not completely clear what it means to have a cv-qualified type as a base-specifier. The original proposed resolution for issue 298 said that “the cv-qualifiers are ignored,” but that wording is not in the resolution that was ultimately approved.
If the cv-qualifiers are not ignored, does that mean that the base-class subobject should be treated as always similarly cv-qualified, regardless of the cv-qualification of the derived-class lvalue used to access the base-class subobject? For instance:
typedef struct B {
void f();
void f() const;
int i;
} const CB;
struct D: CB { };
void g(D* dp) {
dp->f(); // which B::f?
dp->i = 3; // permitted?
}
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 9.1 class.name paragraph 5 as indicated:
A typedef-name (7.1.3 dcl.typedef) that names a class type, or a cv-qualified version thereof, is also aclass-name, butclass-name. If a typedef-name that names a cv-qualified class type is used where a class-name is required, the cv-qualifiers are ignored. A typedef-name shall not be used as the identifier in a class-head.
Delete 7.1.3 dcl.typedef paragraph 8:
[Note: if the typedef-name is used where a class-name (or enum-name) is required, the program is ill-formed. For example,
typedef struct { S(); // error: requires a return type because S is // an ordinary member function, not a constructor } S;—end note]
The proposed resolution for issue 45 inserts the following sentence after 11 class.access paragraph 1:
A member of a class can also access all names as the class of which it is a member.
I don't think that this is correctly constructed English. I see two possibilities:
This is a typo, and the correct change is:
A member of a class can also access all names of the class of which it is a member.
The intent is something more like:
A member of a nested class can also access all names accessible by any other member of the class of which it is a member.
[Note: this was editorially corrected at the time defect resolutions were being incorporated into the Working Paper to read, “...can also access all the names declared in the class of which it is a member,” which is essentially the same as the preceding option 1.]
I would prefer to use the language proposed for 11.8 class.access.nest:
A nested class is a member and as such has the same access rights as any other member.
A second problem is with the text in 11.4 class.friend paragraph 2:
[Note: this means that access to private and protected
names is also granted to member functions of the friend class (as
if the functions were each friends) and to the static data member
definitions of the friend class. This also means that private and
protected type names from the class granting friendship can be
used in the base-clause of a nested class of the friend
class. However, the declarations of members of classes nested
within the friend class cannot access the names of private and
protected members from the class granting friendship. Also,
because the base-clause of the friend class is not part of
its member declarations, the base-clause of the friend
class cannot access the names of the private and protected
members from the class granting friendship. For example,
class A {
class B { };
friend class X;
};
class X : A::B { // ill-formed: A::B cannot be accessed
// in the base-clause for X
A::B mx; // OK: A::B used to declare member of X
class Y: A::B { // OK: A::B used to declare member of X
A::B my; // ill-formed: A::B cannot be accessed
// to declare members of nested class of X
};
};
—end note]
This seems to be an oversight. The proposed change to 11.8 class.access.nest paragraph 1 would appear to have eliminated the restrictions on nested class access. However, at least one compiler (gcc 3.4.3) doesn't appear to take my view, and continues with the restrictions on access by classes within a friend class, while implementing the rest of the resolution of issue 45.
Note (March, 2005):
Andreas Hommel: I think issue 45 requires an additional change in 9.7 class.nest paragraph 4:
Like a member function, a friend function (11.4 class.friend) defined within a nested class is in the lexical scope of that class; it obeys the same rules for name binding as a static member function of that class (9.4 class.static) and has no special access rights to members of an enclosing class.
I believe the “no special access rights” language should be removed.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 372.
I don't know the reason for this distinction, but it seems to be surprising that Base::A is legal and D is illegal in this example:
class D;
class Base
{
class A;
class B;
friend class D;
};
class Base::B
{
};
class Base::A : public Base::B // OK because of issue 45
{
};
class D : public Base::B // illegal because of 11.4p4
{
};
Shouldn't this be consistent (either way)?
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
In discussing issue 372, the CWG decided that access in the base-specifiers of a class should be the same as for its members, and that resolution will apply to friend declarations, as well.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 372.
The grammar for a template-name is:
That's not right; consider:
template <class T> T operator+(const T&, const T&);
template <> S operator+<S>(const S&, const S&);
This is ill-formed according to the standard, since operator+ is not a template-name.
Suggested resolution:
I think the right rule is
John Spicer adds that there's some question about whether conversion functions should be included, as they cannot have template argument lists.
Notes from 4/02 meeting:
If the change is made as a syntax change, we'll need a semantic restriction to avoid operator+<int> as a class. Clark Nelson will work on a compromise proposal -- not the minimal change to the syntax proposed, not the maximal change either.
Clark Nelson (April 2003):
The proposed solution (adding operator-function-id as an alternative for template-name) would have a large impact on the language described by the grammar. Specifically, for example, operator+<int> would become a syntactically valid class-name.
On the other hand, a change with (I believe) exactly the desired effect on the language accepted, would be to modify operator-function-id itself:
(Steve Adamczyk: this change was already made by issue 38 and is in TC1.)
Then there is the first sentence of 14.2 temp.names paragraph 3:
After name lookup (3.4 basic.lookup) finds that a name is a template-name, if this name is followed by a <, the < is always taken as the beginning of a template-argument-list and never as a name followed by the less-than operator.
This description seems to be adequate for names of class templates. As far as I can tell, the only ambiguity it resolves is from something that starts with new X <, in the scope of a class template X. But as far as I can tell is already inadequate for names of function templates, and is even worse for operator function templates.
Probably < should always be interpreted as introducing a template-argument-list if any member of the overload set is a function template. After all, function pointers are very rarely compared for ordering, and it's not clear what other rule might be workable.
I'm inclined to propose the simplest rule possible for operator-function-ids: if one is followed by <, then what follows is interpreted as a template-argument-list, unconditionally. Of course, if no template for that operator has been declared, then there's an error.
Also, note that if the operator in question is < or <<, it is possible to run into a problem similar to the famous >> nested template argument list closing delimiter problem. However, since in this case (at least) one of the < characters has a radically different interpretation than the other, and for other reasons as well, this is unlikely to be nearly as much of a practical problem as the >> problem.
Notes from April 2003 meeting:
We felt that the operator functions should not be special-cased. They should be treated like any other name.
September 2003:
Clark Nelson has provided the changes in N1490=03-0073.
Notes from October 2003 meeting:
We reviewed Clark Nelson's N1490. Clark will revise it and introduce a new syntax term for an identifier or the name of an operator function.
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The CWG suggested a new approach to resolving this issue: the existing term template-id will be renamed to class-template-id, the term template-id will be defined to include operator functions with template arguments, and any current uses of template-id (such as in the definition of elaborated-type-specifier) where an operator function is not appropriate will be changed to refer to class-template-id.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
As specified in document J16/05-0156 = WG21 N1896.
For the same reasons that issue 382 proposes for relaxation of the requirements on typename, it would make sense to allow the ::template disambiguator outside of templates.
See also issues 11, 30, 96, and 109.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 14.2 temp.names paragraph 5 as indicated:
If a name prefixed by the keyword template is not the name of a template, the program is ill-formed. [Note: the keyword template may not be applied to non-template members of class templates. —end note]Furthermore, names of member templates shall not be prefixed by the keyword template if the postfix-expression or qualified-id does not appear in the scope of a template.[Note: just as is the case with the typename prefix, the template prefix is allowed in cases where it is not strictly necessary; i.e., when the nested-name-specifier or the expression on the left of the -> or ., or the nested-name-specifieris not dependent on a template-parameter, or the use does not appear in the scope of a template. —end note]
I'm not really sure what the standard says about this. Personally, I'd like for it to be ill-formed, but I can't find any words that I can interpret to say so.
template<class T>
class X
{
protected:
typedef T Type;
};
template<class T>
class Y
{
};
template<class T,
template<class> class T1,
template<class> class T2>
class Z:
public T2<typename T1<T>::Type>,
public T1<T>
{
};
Z<int, X, Y> z;
John Spicer: I don't think the standard really addresses this case. There is wording about access checking of things used as template arguments, but that doesn't address accessing members of the template argument type (or template) from within the template.
This example is similar, but does not use template template arguments.
class X {
private:
struct Type {};
};
template <class T> struct A {
typename T::Type t;
};
A<X> ax;
This gets an error from most compilers, though the standard is probably mute on this as well. An error makes sense -- if there is no error, there is a hole in the access checking. (The special rule about no access checks on template parameters is not a hole, because the access is checked on the type passed in as an argument. But when you look up something in the scope of a template parameter type, you need to check the access to the member found.)
The logic in the template template parameter case should be similar: anytime you look up something in a template-dependent class, the member's access must be checked, because it could be different for different template instances.
Proposed Resolution (October 2002):
Change the last sentence of 14.3 temp.arg paragraph 3 from:
For a template-argument of class type, the template definition has no special access rights to the inaccessible members of the template argument type.to:
For a template-argument that is a class type or a class template, the
template definition has no special access rights to the members
of the template-argument. [Example:
template <template <class TT> class T> class A {
typename T<int>::S s;
};
template <class U> class B {
private:
struct S { /* ... */ };
};
A<B> b; // ill-formed, A has no access to B::S
-- end example]
Daniel Frey posts on comp.std.c++ in July 2003: I just read DR 372 and I think that the problem presented is not really discussed/solved properly. Consider this example:
class A {
protected:
typedef int N;
};
template< typename T >
class B
{};
template< typename U >
class C : public U, public B< typename U::N >
{};
C< A > x;
The question is: If C is derived from A as above, is it allowed to access A::N before the classes opening '{'?
The main problem is that you need to access U's protected parts in C's base-clause. This pattern is common when using policies, Andrei's Loki library was bitten by it as he tried to make some parts of the policies 'protected' but some compilers rejected the code. They were right to reject it, I think it's 11.4 class.friend/2 that applies here and prevents the code above to be legal, although it addresses a different and reasonable example. To me, it seems wrong to reject the code as it is perfectly reasonable to write such stuff. The questions are:
Steve Adamczyk: In other words, the point of the issue is over what range access derived from base class specifiers is granted, and whether any part of that range is the base specifier list itself, either the parts afterwards or the whole base specifier list. (Clark Nelson confirms this is what he was asking with the original question.) Personally, I find it somewhat disturbing that access might arrive incrementally; I'd prefer that the access happen all at once, at the opening brace of the class.
Notes from October 2003 meeting:
We decided it makes sense to delay the access checking for the base class specifiers until the opening brace of the class is seen. In other words, the base specifiers will be checked using the full access available for the class, and the order of the base classes is not significant in that determination. The implementors present all said they already had code to handle accumulation of delayed access checks, because it is already needed in other contexts.
Proposed resolution (October, 2004):
Change the last sentence of 14.3 temp.arg paragraph 3 as indicated:
For a template-argumentofthat is a class type or a class template, the template definition has no special access rights to theinaccessiblemembers of thetemplate argument typetemplate-argument. [Example:template <template <class TT> class T> class A { typename T<int>::S s; }; template <class U> class B { private: struct S { /* ... */ }; }; A<B> b; // ill-formed, A has no access to B::S—end example]
Insert the following as a new paragraph after the final paragraph of 11 class.access:
The access of names in a class base-specifier-list are checked at the end of the list after all base classes are known. [Example:
class A { protected: typedef int N; }; template<typename T> class B {}; template<typename U> class C : public B<typename U::N>, public U {}; C<A> x; // OK: A is a base class so A::N in B<A::N> is accessible
—end example]
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The 10/2004 resolution is not sufficient to implement the CWG's intent to allow these examples: clause 11 class.access paragraph 1 grants protected access only to “members and friends” of derived classes, not to their base-specifiers. The resolution needs to be extended to say either that access in base-specifiers is determined as if they were members of the class being defined or that access is granted to the class as an entity, including its base-specifiers. See also issue 500, which touches on the same issue and should be resolved in the same way.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change the second bullet of 11 class.access paragraph 1 as indicated:
protected; that is, its name can be used only by
members and friends of the class in which it is declared, and by
members and friends of classes derived from this class by
classes derived from that class, and by their friends (see
11.5
class.protected).
Change 11 class.access paragraph 2 as indicated:
A member of a class can also access all the namesdeclared in the class of which it is a memberto which the class has access.
Change 11 class.access paragraph 6 as indicated:
All access controls in clause 11 class.access affect the ability to access a class member name from a particular scope.The access control for names used in the definition of a class member that appears outside of the member's class definition is done as if the entire member definition appeared in the scope of the member's class.For purposes of access control, the base-specifiers of a class and the definitions of class members that appear outside of the class definition are considered to be within the scope of that class. In particular...
Change the example and commentary in 11 class.access paragraphs 6-7 as indicated:
[Example:
class A { typedef int I; // private member I f(); friend I g(I); static I x; protected: struct B { }; }; A::I A::f () { return 0; } A::I g(A::I p = A::x); A::I g(A::I p ) { return 0; } A::I A::x = 0; struct D: A::B, A { };Here, all the uses of A::I are well-formed because A::f and A::x are members of class A and g is a friend of class A. This implies, for example, that access checking on the first use of A::I must be deferred until it is determined that this use of A::I is as the return type of a member of class A. Similarly, the use of A::B as a base-specifier is well-formed because D is derived from A, so access checking of base-specifiers must be deferred until the entire base-specifier-list has been seen. —end example]
In 11.4 class.friend paragraph 2, replace the following text:
Declaring a class to be a friend implies that the names of private and protected members from the class granting friendship can be accessed in declarations of members of the befriended class. [Note: this means that access to private and protected names is also granted to member functions of the friend class (as if the functions were each friends) and to the static data member definitions of the friend class. This also means that private and protected type names from the class granting friendship can be used in the base-clause of a nested class of the friend class. However, the declarations of members of classes nested within the friend class cannot access the names of private and protected members from the class granting friendship. Also, because the base-clause of the friend class is not part of its member declarations, the base-clause of the friend class cannot access the names of the private and protected members from the class granting friendship. For example,
class A { class B { }; friend class X; }; class X: A::B { // ill-formed: A::B cannot be accessed // in the base-clause for X A::B mx; // OK: A::B used to declare member of X class Y: A::B { // OK: A::B used to declare member of X A::B my; // ill-formed: A::B cannot be accessed // to declare members of nested class of X }; };—end note]
with:
Declaring a class to be a friend implies that the names of private and protected members from the class granting friendship can be accessed in the base-specifiers and member declarations of the befriended class. [Example:
class A { class B { }; friend class X; }; struct X: A::B { // OK: A::B accessible to friend A::B mx; // OK: A::B accessible to member of friend class Y { A::B my; // OK: A::B accessible to nested member of friend }; };—end example]
Change the last sentence of 14.3 temp.arg paragraph 3 as indicated:
For a template-argument
ofthat is a class type or a class template, the template definition has no special access rights to theinaccessiblemembers of thetemplate argument type.template-argument. [Example:template <template <class TT> class T> class A { typename T<int>::S s; }; template <class U> class B { private: struct S { /* ... */ }; }; A<B> b; // ill-formed, A has no access to B::S—end example]
Change 9.7 class.nest paragraph 4 as indicated:
Like a member function, a friend function (11.4 class.friend) defined within a nested class is in the lexical scope of that class; it obeys the same rules for name binding as a static member function of that class (9.4 class.static), but itandhas no special access rights to members of an enclosing class.
(Note: this resolution also resolves issues 494 and 500.)
According to 14.5.4 temp.class.spec paragraph 1,
If a template is partially specialized then that partial specialization shall be declared before the first use of that partial specialization that would cause an implicit instantiation to take place, in every translation unit in which such a use occurs; no diagnostic is required.
This leaves the impression that an explicit instantiation of the primary template may precede the declaration of an applicable partial specialization. Is the following example well-formed?
template<typename T> class X{
public:
void foo(){};
};
template class X<void *>;
template<typename T> class X<T*>{
public:
void baz();
};
void bar() {
X<void *> x;
x.foo();
}
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Replace the last sentence of 14.5.4 temp.class.spec paragraph 1:
If a template is partially specialized then that partial specialization shall be declared before the first use of that partial specialization that would cause an implicit instantiation to take place, in every translation unit in which such a use occurs; no diagnostic is required.
with:
A partial specialization shall be declared before the first use of a class template specialization that would make use of the partial specialization as the result of an implicit or explicit instantiation in every translation unit in which such a use occurs; no diagnostic is required.
Implementations vary in their treatment of the following code:
struct A {
int foo_;
};
template <typename T> struct B: public A { };
template <typename T> struct C: B<T> {
int foo() {
return A::foo_; // #1
}
};
int f(C<int>* p) {
return p->foo();
}
According to one analysis, because the expression A::foo_ on line #1 is non-dependent, it must be analyzed in the definition context. It that context, it violates the restrictions of 9.2 class.mem paragraph 10 on how the name of a nonstatic data member of a class can be used and thus should be treated as an error.
On the other hand, the description of the transformation of an id-expression into a class member access expression (9.3.1 class.mfct.nonstatic paragraph 3) does not have any special treatment of templates; when C<int>::foo() is instantiated, the reference to A::foo_ turns out to be to a base class member and is thus transformed into (*this).A::foo_ and is thus not an error.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 9.3.1 class.mfct.nonstatic paragraph 3 as indicated:
When an id-expression (5.1 expr.prim) that is not part of a class member access syntax (5.2.5 expr.ref) and not used to form a pointer to member (5.3.1 expr.unary.op) is used in the body of a non-static member function of class X or used in the mem-initializer for a constructor of class X, if name lookup (3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual) resolves the name in the id-expression to a non-static non-type member ofclass X or of a base class of Xsome class C, the id-expression is transformed into a class member access expression (5.2.5 expr.ref) using (*this) (9.3.2 class.this) as the postfix-expression to the left of the . operator. [Note: If C is not X or a base class of X, the class member access expression is ill-formed. —end note]The member name then refers to the member of the object for which the function is called.Similarly during name lookup...
The description of dependent function calls in 14.6.2 temp.dep paragraph 1 applies only to identifiers in postfix-notation function calls and to operator notation calls for operator functions:
In an expression of the form:
postfix-expression ( expression-listopt )
where the postfix-expression is an identifier, the identifier denotes a dependent name if and only if any of the expressions in the expression-list is a type-dependent expression (14.6.2.2 temp.dep.expr). If an operand of an operator is a type-dependent expression, the operator also denotes a dependent name.
It would appear from the related passage in 14.6.4.2 temp.dep.candidate paragraph 1 that the description of postfix-notation function calls should apply to all unqualified-ids that are not template-ids, including operator-function-ids, not just to identifiers:
For a function call that depends on a template parameter, if the function name is an unqualified-id but not a template-id, the candidate functions are found...
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 14.6.2 temp.dep paragraph 1 as indicated:
...In an expression of the form:
postfix-expression ( expression-listopt )
where the postfix-expression is an
identifierunqualified-id but not a template-id, theidentifierunqualified-id denotes a dependent name if and only if any of the expressions in the expression-list is a type-dependent expression (14.6.2.2 temp.dep.expr)...
Change 14.6.4.2 temp.dep.candidate paragraph 1 as indicated:
For a function call that depends on a template parameter, if the function name is an unqualified-id but not a template-id, or if the function is called using operator notation, the candidate functions are found using the usual lookup rules (3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual, 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep) except that...
Paragraph 17 of 14.7.3 temp.expl.spec says,
A member or a member template may be nested within many enclosing class templates. In an explicit specialization for such a member, the member declaration shall be preceded by a template<> for each enclosing class template that is explicitly specialized.
This is curious, because paragraph 3 only allows explicit specialization of members of implicitly-instantiated class specializations, not explicit specializations. Furthermore, paragraph 4 says,
Definitions of members of an explicitly specialized class are defined in the same manner as members of normal classes, and not using the explicit specialization syntax.
Paragraph 18 provides a clue for resolving the apparent contradiction:
In an explicit specialization declaration for a member of a class template or a member template that appears in namespace scope, the member template and some of its enclosing class templates may remain unspecialized, except that the declaration shall not explicitly specialize a class member template if its enclosing class templates are not explicitly specialized as well. In such explicit specialization declaration, the keyword template followed by a template-parameter-list shall be provided instead of the template<> preceding the explicit specialization declaration of the member.
It appears from this and the following example that the phrase “explicitly specialized” in paragraphs 17 and 18, when referring to enclosing class templates, does not mean that explicit specializations have been declared for them but that their names in the qualified-id are followed by template argument lists. This terminology is confusing and should be changed.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 14.7.3 temp.expl.spec paragraph 17 as indicated:
A member or a member template may be nested within many enclosing class templates. In an explicit specialization for such a member, the member declaration shall be preceded by a template<> for each enclosing class templatethat is explicitly specializedspecialization. [Example:...
Change 14.7.3 temp.expl.spec paragraph 18 as indicated:
In an explicit specialization declaration for a member of a class template or a member template that appears in namespace scope, the member template and some of its enclosing class templates may remain unspecialized,except that the declaration shall not explicitly specialize a class member template if its enclosing class templates are not explicitly specialized as wellthat is, the template-id naming the template may be composed of template parameter names rather than template-arguments.InFor each unspecialized template in such an explicit specialization declaration, the keyword template followed by a template-parameter-list shall be provided instead of the template<> preceding theexplicit specializationdeclaration of the member. The types of the template-parameters in the template-parameter-list shall be the same as those specified in the primary template definition. In such declarations, an unspecialized template-id shall not precede the name of a template specialization in the qualified-id naming the member. [Example:...
Consider the following example:
char* cmdline3_[1] = {};
template<class charT>
void func(const charT* const argv[]) {}
int main()
{
func(cmdline3_);
}
In terms of the process described in 14.8.2.1 temp.deduct.call, P is const charT* const * and A is char*[1]. According to the first bullet in paragraph 2, the type used in deduction is not A but “the pointer type produced by the array-to-pointer standard conversion.”
According to paragraph 4,
In general, the deduction process attempts to find template argument values that will make the deduced A identical to A (after the type A is transformed as described above). However, there are three cases that allow a difference:
In this example, the deduced A is not identical to the transformed A, because the deduced A has additional cv-qualification, so the three exceptions must be examined to see if they apply. The only one that might apply is the second bullet of paragraph 4:
- A can be another pointer or pointer to member type that can be converted to the deduced A via a qualification conversion (4.4 conv.qual).
However, A is not a pointer type but an array type; this provision does not apply and deduction fails.
It has been argued that the phrase “after the type A is transformed as described above” should be understood to apply to the A in the three bullets of paragraph 4. If that is the intent, the wording should be changed to make that explicit.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Add the indicated words to 14.8.2 temp.deduct paragraph 4:
In general, the deduction process attempts to find template argument values that will make the deduced A identical to A (after the type A is transformed as described above). However, there are three cases that allow a difference:
If the original P is a reference type, the deduced A (i.e., the type referred to by the reference) can be more cv-qualified than the transformed A.
The transformed A can be another pointer or pointer to member type that can be converted to the deduced A via a qualification conversion (4.4 conv.qual).
If P is a class, and P has the form template-id, then the transformed A can be a derived class of the deduced A. Likewise, if P is a pointer to a class of the form template-id, the transformed A can be a pointer to a derived class pointed to by the deduced A.
14.8.2.5 temp.deduct.type paragraph 5 reads:
The non-deduced contexts are:
The nested-name-specifier of a type that was specified using a qualified-id.
A non-type template argument or an array bound that is an expression that references a template parameter.
A template parameter used in the parameter type of a function parameter that has a default argument that is being used in the call for which argument deduction is being done.
A function parameter for which argument deduction cannot be done because the associated function argument is a function, or a set of overloaded functions (13.4 over.over), and one or more of the following apply:
more than one function matches the function parameter type (resulting in an ambiguous deduction), or
no function matches the function parameter type, or
the set of functions supplied as an argument contains one or more function templates.
An array bound that is an expression that references a template-parameter.
There are two problems with this list:
The last bullet is redundant with the second bullet. This appears to have been the result of applying the resolutions of issues 70 and 352 independently instead of in coordination.
The second bullet appears to be contradicted by the statement in paragraph 8 saying that an argument can be deduced if P and A have the forms type[i] and template-name<i>.
The intent of the wording in bullet 2 appears to have been that deduction cannot be done if the template parameter is a sub-expression of the template argument or array bound expression and that it can be done if it is the complete expression, but the current wording does not say that very clearly. (Similar wording also appears in 14.6.2.1 temp.dep.type paragraph 3 and 14.8.2.5 temp.deduct.type paragraph 14.)
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 14.8.2.5 temp.deduct.type paragraph 5 as indicated:
The non-deduced contexts are:
The nested-name-specifier of a type that was specified using a qualified-id.
A non-type template argument or an array bound
that is an expression thatin either of which a subexpression references a template parameter.A template parameter used in the parameter type of a function parameter that has a default argument that is being used in the call for which argument deduction is being done.
A function parameter for which argument deduction cannot be done because the associated function argument is a function, or a set of overloaded functions (13.4 over.over), and one or more of the following apply:
more than one function matches the function parameter type (resulting in an ambiguous deduction), or
no function matches the function parameter type, or
the set of functions supplied as an argument contains one or more function templates.
An array bound that is an expression that references a template-parameter.
Change 14.8.2.5 temp.deduct.type paragraph 14 as indicated:
If, in the declaration of a function template with a non-type template parameter, the non-type template parameter is used inan expressiona subexpression in the function parameter list, the expression is a non-deduced context as specified above...
Change 14.6.2.1 temp.dep.type paragraph 3 as indicated:
A template argument that is equivalent to a template parameter (i.e., has the same constant value or the same type as the template parameter) can be used in place of that template parameter in a reference to the current instantiation. In the case of a non-type template argument, the argument must have been given the value of the template parameter and not an expressioninvolvingthat contains the template parameter as a subexpression...
Mike Miller: In fact, now that I've looked more closely, that appears not to be the case. (At least, it's not the error I get when I compile his example.) Here's a minimal extract (without the inflammatory using-directive :-) that illustrates what I think is going on:
template <typename _Iterator>
struct iterator_traits {
typedef typename _Iterator::difference_type difference_type;
};
template <typename _InputIterator>
inline typename iterator_traits<_InputIterator>::difference_type
distance(_InputIterator, _InputIterator);
double distance(const int&, const int&);
void f() {
int i = 0;
int j = 0;
double d = distance(i, j);
}
What happens is that iterator_traits<int> is instantiated as part of type deduction for the function template distance, and the instantiation fails. (Note that it can't be instantiation of distance<int>, as I had originally posited, because in this case only a declaration, not a definition, of that template is in scope.)
John Spicer: Yes, I believe that is what is going on.
Mike Miller: I seem to recall that there was some discussion of questions related to this during the core meetings in Oxford. I think Steve Adamczyk said something to the effect that it's infeasible to suppress all instantiation errors during template type deduction and simply call any such errors a deduction failure. (I could be misremembering, and I could be misapplying that comment to this situation.)
John Spicer: Regardless of other conditions in which this may apply, I don't think it would be reasonable for compilers to have to do "speculative instantiations" during template argument deduction. One class instantiation could kick off a series of other instantiations, etc.
Mike Miller: I don't see anything in the Standard that tells me whether it's legitimate or not to report an error in this case. I hope John or another template expert can enlighten me on that.
John Spicer: My opinion is that, because this case is not among those enumerated that cause deduction failure (rather than being ill-formed) that reporting an error is the right thing to do.
Mike Miller: I am still interested, though, in the question of why 14.8.3 temp.over says that viable function template specializations are instantiated, even if they are not selected by overload resolution.
John Spicer: I believe the wording in 14.8.3 temp.over is incorrect. I researched this and found that a change was made during the clause 14 restructuring that was incorporated in March of 1996. The prior wording was "the deduced template arguments are used to generate a single template function". This was changed to "deduced template arguments are used to instantiate a single function template specialization". I believe this resulted from what was basically a global replace of "generate" with "instantiate" and of "template function" with "function template specialization". In this case, the substitution changed the meaning. This paragraph needs reworking.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 14.8.3 temp.over paragraph 1 as indicated:
...For each function template, if the argument deduction and checking succeeds, the template-arguments (deduced and/or explicit) are used toinstantiatesynthesize a single function template specialization declaration which is added to the candidate functions set to be used in overload resolution. If, for a given function template, argument deduction fails, no such function is added to the set of candidate functions for that template. The complete set of candidate functions includes all the functiontemplates instantiatedtemplate specialization declarations synthesized in this way and all of the non-template overloaded functions of the same name. The function templatespecializationsspecialization declarations are treated like any other functions in the remainder of overload resolution, except as explicitly noted in 13.3.3 over.match.best.
See also issue 37.
Given this piece of code and S having a user-defined ctor, at precisely which point must std::uncaught_exception() return true and where false?
try { S s0; throw s0; } catch (S s2) { }
My understanding of the semantics of the code is as follows:
Is my understanding correct?
15.1 except.throw paragraph 3 talks about “the exception object” when describing the semantics of the throw-expression:
a throw-expression initializes a temporary object, called the exception object...
However, 15.5.1 except.terminate paragraph 1 talks about “the expression to be thrown” when enumerating the conditions under which terminate() is called:
when the exception handling mechanism, after completing evaluation of the expression to be thrown but before the exception is caught (15.1 except.throw), calls a user function that exits via an uncaught exception...
And, 15.5.3 except.uncaught paragraph 1 refers to “the object to be thrown” in the description of uncaught_exception():
The function std::uncaught_exception() returns true after completing evaluation of the object to be thrown...
Are all these objects one and the same? I believe the answer is important in case the construction of the temporary exception object throws another exception.
Suppose they are the same. Then uncaught_exception() invoked from the copy ctor for s1 (from the example [above]) must return false and a new exception (e.g., bad_alloc) may be thrown and caught by a matching handler (i.e., without calling terminate()).
But if they are not the same, then uncaught_exception() invoked from the copy ctor for s1 must return true and throwing another exception would end up calling terminate(). This would, IMO, have pretty severe consequences on writing exception safe exception classes.
As in the first case, different compilers behave differently, with most compilers not calling terminate() when the ctor for the temporary exception object throws. Unfortunately, the two compilers that I trust the most do call terminate().
FWIW, my feeling is that it should be possible for the copy ctor invoked to initialize the temporary exception object to safely exit by throwing another exception, and that the new exception should be allowed to be caught without calling terminate.
Mike Miller: The way I see this, a throw-expression has an assignment-expression as an operand. This expression is “the expression to be thrown.” Evaluation of this expression yields an object; this object is “the object to be thrown.” This object is then copied to the exception object.
Martin Sebor: Here's a survey of the return value from uncaught_exception() in the various stages of exception handling, implemented by current compilers:
| expr | temp | unwind | handlr | 2nd ex | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HP aCC 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | OK |
| Compaq C++ 6.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ABRT |
| EDG eccp 3.4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ABRT |
| g++ 3.4.2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | OK |
| Intel C++ 7.0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | OK |
| MIPSpro 7.4.1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ABRT |
| MSVC 7.0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | OK |
| SunPro 5.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | OK |
| VisualAge 6.0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | OK |
In the table above:
| expr | is the evaluation of the assignment-expression in the throw-expression |
| temp | is the invocation of the copy ctor for the unnamed temporary exception object created by the runtime. |
| unwind | is stack unwinding. |
| handlr | is the invocation of the copy ctor in the exception-declaration in the catch handler. |
| 2nd ex | describes the behavior of the implementation when the invocation of the copy ctor for the unnamed temporary exception object [temp] throws another exception. |
Proposed resolution (October, 2004):
Change 15.1 except.throw paragraph 3 as follows:
A throw-expression initializes a temporary object, called the exception object,theby copying the thrown object (i.e., the result of evaluating its assignment-expression operand) to it. The type ofwhichthe exception object is determined by removing any top-level cv-qualifiers from the static type of the operand of throw and adjusting the type from “array of T” or “function returning T” to “pointer to T” or “pointer to function returning T,” respectively. [Note: the temporary object createdforby a throw-expressionthatwhose operand is a string literal is never of type char* or wchar_t*; that is, the special conversions for string literals from the types “array of const char” and “array of const wchar_t” to the types “pointer to char” and “pointer to wchar_t,” respectively (4.2 conv.array), are never applied to the operand of a throw-expression. —end note] The temporary is an lvalue and is used to initialize the variable named in the matching handler (15.3 except.handle). The type of the operand of a throw-expression shall not be an incomplete type, or a pointer to an incomplete type other than (possibly cv-qualified) void. [...]
Change the note in 15.3 except.handle paragraph 3 as follows:
[Note: a throw-expression operand thatwhichis an integral constant expression of integer type that evaluates to zero does not match a handler of pointer type; that is, the null pointer constant conversions (4.10 conv.ptr, 4.11 conv.mem) do not apply. —end note]
Change 15.5.1 except.terminate paragraph 1 bullet 1 as follows:
when the exception handling mechanism, after completing evaluation of theexpression to be thrownoperand of throw but before the exception is caught (15.1 except.throw), calls a user function that exits via an uncaught exception,
Change 15.5.3 except.uncaught paragraph 1 as follows:
The function std::uncaught_exception() returns true after completing evaluation of theobject to be thrownoperand of throw until completing the initialization of the exception-declaration in the matching handler (18.6.4 lib.uncaught).
Change 18.6.4 lib.uncaught paragraph 1 by adding the indicated words:
Returns: true after completing evaluation of the operand of a throw-expression until either completing initialization of the exception-declaration in the matching handler or entering unexpected() due to the throw; or after entering terminate() for any reason other than an explicit call to terminate(). [Note: This includes stack unwinding (15.2 except.ctor). —end note]
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The CWG discussed this resolution both within the group and with other interested parties. Among the points that were made:
Martin Sebor pointed to a posting in which he argues that writing copy constructors is more difficult if an exception during the copy to the exception object will result in a call to std::terminate().
In response to a question about why the copy to the exception object is different from the copy from the exception object to the object in the exception-declaration, it was observed that the writer of the handler can avoid the second copy (by using a reference declaration), but the first copy is unavoidable.
John Spicer observed that not exiting via exception should be a design constraint for copy constructors in exception objects, regardless of whether std::terminate() is called or not.
Adopting the position that uncaught_exception() returns false during the copy to the exception object would reduce the differences between the case where that copy is elided and the case where it is performed.
Jason Merrill observed that making uncaught_exception() return false during the copy to the exception object would simplify the code generated by g++; as it currently stands, the compiler must generate code to catch exceptions during that copy so std::terminate() can be called.
Bjarne Stroustrup worried that allowing the copy constructor to throw an exception during the copy to the exception object could result in a serious and specific exception being silently transformed into a more trivial and generic one (although the CWG later noted that this risk already exists if something in the expression being thrown throws an exception before the expression completes).
The CWG felt that more input from a wider audience was necessary before a decision could be made on the appropriate resolution.
The motivation for this issue is a desire to write portable programs which will work with any conforming implementation.
The C++ Standard (16.2 cpp.include) provides two forms of #include directives, with the <...> form being described (16.2 cpp.include paragraph 2) as "for a header", and the "..." form (16.2 cpp.include paragraph 3) as for "the source file" identified between the delimiters. When the standard uses the term "header", it often appears to be limiting the term to apply to the Standard Library headers only. Users of the standard almost always use the term "header" more broadly, to cover all #included source files, but particularly those containing interface declarations.
Headers, including source files, can be categorized according to their origin and usage:
Existing practice varies widely, but it is fairly easy to find users advocating:
Do any of the practices A, B, or C result in programs which can be rejected by a conforming implementation?
The first defect is that readers of the standard have not been able to reach consensus on the answers to the above question.
A second possible defect is that if A, B, or C can be rejected by a conforming implementation, then the standard should be changed because would mean there is a wide variance between the standard and existing practice.
Matt Austern: I really only see two positions:
I agree that the standard should clarify which of those two is the case (I imagine it'll hinge on finding one crucual sentence that either says "implementation defined" or "unspecified"), but from the standpoint of portability I don't see much difference between the two. I claim that, with either of those two interpretations, using #include <foo> is already nonportable.
(Of course, I claim that almost anything having to do with headers, including the #include "foo" form, is also nonportable. In practice there's wide variation in how compilers handle paths, especially relative paths.)
Beman Dawes: The whole issue can be resolved by replacing "header" with "header or source file" in 16.2 cpp.include paragraph 2. That will bring the standard into alignment with existing practice by both users and implementations. The "header and/or source file" wording is used at least three other places in the standard where otherwise there might be some confusion.
John Skaller: In light of Andrew Koenig's comments, this doesn't appear to be the case, since the mapping of include names to file names is implementation defined, and therefore source file inclusion cannot be made portable within the ISO C/C++ standards (since that provision obviously cannot be removed).
A possible idea is to create a binding standard, outside the C/C++ ISO Standards, which specifies not only the path lookup mechanism but also the translation from include names to file names. Clearly that is OS dependent, encoding dependent, etc, but there is no reason not to have a binding standard for Unix, Windows, etc, and specify these bindings in such a way that copying directories from one OS to the other can result in programs working on both OS's.
Andy Koenig: An easier solution might be to specify a (presumably unbounded, or bounded only by implementation capacity) collection of header-file names that every implementation must make it possible for programs to access somehow, without specifying exactly how.
Notes from October 2002 meeting:
This was discussed at some length. While there was widespread agreement that such inclusion is inherently implementation-dependent, we agreed to try to add wording that would make it clear that implementations are permitted (but not required) to allow inclusion of files using the <...> form of #include.
Proposed resolution (April, 2005):
Change 16.2 cpp.include paragraph 7 from:
[Example: The most common uses of #include preprocessing
directives are as in the following:
#include <stdio.h>
#include "myprog.h"
—end example]
to:
[Note: Although an implementation may provide a mechanism for
making arbitrary source files available to the < >
search, in general programmers should use the < > form
for headers provided with the implementation, and the " "
form for sources outside the control of the implementation. For
instance:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include "usefullib.h"
#include "myprog.h"
—end note]
Notes from October, 2005 meeting:
Some doubt was expressed as to whether the benefit of this non-normative clarification outweighs the overall goal of synchronizing clause 16 with the corresponding text in the C99 Standard. As a result, this issue is being left in “review” status to allow further discussion.
The nonterminals operator and punctuator in 2.6 lex.token are not defined. There is a definition of the nonterminal operator in 13.5 over.oper paragraph 1, but it is apparent that the two nonterminals are not the same: the latter includes keywords and multi-token operators and does not include the nonoverloadable operators mentioned in paragraph 3.
There is a definition of preprocessing-op-or-punc in 2.12 lex.operators , with the notation that
Each preprocessing-op-or-punc is converted to a single token in translation phase 7 (2.1).However, this list doesn't distinguish between operators and punctuators, it includes digraphs and keywords (can a given token be both a keyword and an operator at the same time?), etc.
Suggested resolution:
Additional note (April, 2005):
The resolution for this problem should also address the fact that sizeof and typeid (and potentially others like decltype that may be added in the future) are described in some places as “operators” but are not listed in 13.5 over.oper paragraph 3 among the operators that cannot be overloaded.
When 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual paragraph 10 says,
In a friend declaration naming a member function, a name used in the function declarator and not part of a template-argument in a template-id is first looked up in the scope of the member function's class. If it is not found, or if the name is part of a template-argument in a template-id, the look up is as described for unqualified names in the definition of the class granting friendship.
what does “in the scope of the member function's class” mean? Does it mean that only members of the class and its base classes are considered? Or does it mean that the same lookup is to be performed as if the name appeared in the member function's class? Implementations vary in this regard. For example:
struct s1;
namespace ns {
struct s1;
}
struct s2 {
void f(s1 &);
};
namespace ns {
struct s3 {
friend void s2::f(s1 &);
};
}
Microsoft Visual C++ and Comeau C++ resolve s1 in the friend declaration to ns::s1 and issue an error, while g++ resolves it to ::s1 and accepts the code.
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The phrase “looked up in the scope of [a] class” occurs frequently throughout the Standard and always refers to the member name lookup described in 10.2 class.member.lookup. This is the first interpretation mentioned above (“only members of the class and its base classes”), resolving s1 to ns::s1. A cross-reference to 10.2 class.member.lookup will be added to 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual paragraph 10 to make this clearer.
In discussing this question, the CWG noticed another problem: the text quoted above applies to all template-arguments appearing in the function declarator. The intention of this rule, however, is that only template-arguments in the declarator-id should ignore the member function's class scope; template-arguments used elsewhere in the function declarator should be treated like other names. For example:
template<typename T> struct S;
struct A {
typedef int T;
void foo(S<T>);
};
template <typename T> struct B {
friend void A::foo(S<T>); // i.e., S<A::T>
};
The original intent of the Committee when Koenig lookup was added to the language was apparently something like the following:
This approach is not reflected in the current wording of the Standard. Instead, the following appears to be the status quo:
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:
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.
In discussing issue 197, the question arose as to whether the handling of fundamental types in argument-dependent lookup is actually what is desired. This question needs further discussion.
Paragraph 7 of 3.4.5 basic.lookup.classref says,
If the id-expression is a conversion-function-id, its conversion-type-id shall denote the same type in both the context in which the entire postfix-expression occurs and in the context of the class of the object expression (or the class pointed to by the pointer expression).Does this mean that the following example is ill-formed?
struct A { operator int(); } a;
void foo() {
typedef int T;
a.operator T(); // 1) error T is not found in the context
// of the class of the object expression?
}
The second bullet in paragraph 1 of
3.4.3.1
class.qual
says,
a conversion-type-id of an operator-function-id is looked up both in the scope of the class and in the context in which the entire postfix-expression occurs and shall refer to the same type in both contextsHow about:
struct A { typedef int T; operator T(); };
struct B : A { operator T(); } b;
void foo() {
b.A::operator T(); // 2) error T is not found in the context
// of the postfix-expression?
}
Is this interpretation correct? Or was the intent for
this to be an error only if
T was found in both scopes and referred to different entities?
If the intent was for these to be errors, how do these rules apply to template arguments?
template <class T1> struct A { operator T1(); }
template <class T2> struct B : A<T2> {
operator T2();
void foo() {
T2 a = A<T2>::operator T2(); // 3) error? when instantiated T2 is not
// found in the scope of the class
T2 b = ((A<T2>*)this)->operator T2(); // 4) error when instantiated?
}
}
(Note bullets 2 and 3 in paragraph 1 of 3.4.3.1 class.qual refer to postfix-expression. It would be better to use qualified-id in both cases.)
Erwin Unruh: The intent was that you look in both contexts. If you find it only once, that's the symbol. If you find it in both, both symbols must be "the same" in some respect. (If you don't find it, its an error).
Mike Miller: What's not clear to me in these examples is whether what is being looked up is T or int. Clearly the T has to be looked up somehow, but the "name" of a conversion function clearly involves the base (non-typedefed) type, not typedefs that might be used in a definition or reference (cf 3 basic paragraph 7 and 12.3 class.conv paragraph 5). (This is true even for types that must be written using typedefs because of the limited syntax in conversion-type-ids — e.g., the "name" of the conversion function in the following example
typedef void (*pf)();
struct S {
operator pf();
};
is S::operator void(*)(), even though you can't write its name
directly.)
My guess is that this means that in each scope you look up the type named in the reference and form the canonical operator name; if the name used in the reference isn't found in one or the other scope, the canonical name constructed from the other scope is used. These names must be identical, and the conversion-type-id in the canonical operator name must not denote different types in the two scopes (i.e., the type might not be found in one or the other scope, but if it's found in both, they must be the same type).
I think this is all very vague in the current wording.
Sent in by David Abrahams:
Yes, and to add to this tangent, 3.9.1 basic.fundamental paragraph 1 states "Plain char, signed char, and unsigned char are three distinct types." Strangely, 3.9 basic.types paragraph 2 talks about how "... the underlying bytes making up the object can be copied into an array of char or unsigned char. If the content of the array of char or unsigned char is copied back into the object, the object shall subsequently hold its original value." I guess there's no requirement that this copying work properly with signed chars!
Notes from October 2002 meeting:
We should do whatever C99 does. 6.5p6 of the C99 standard says "array of character type", and "character type" includes signed char (6.2.5p15), and 6.5p7 says "character type". But see also 6.2.6.1p4, which mentions (only) an array of unsigned char.
Proposed resolution (April 2003):
Change 3.8 basic.life paragraph 5 bullet 3 from
to
Change 3.8 basic.life paragraph 6 bullet 3 from
to
Change the beginning of 3.9 basic.types paragraph 2 from
For any object (other than a base-class subobject) of POD type T, whether or not the object holds a valid value of type T, the underlying bytes (1.7 intro.memory) making up the object can be copied into an array of char or unsigned char.
to
For any object (other than a base-class subobject) of POD type T, whether or not the object holds a valid value of type T, the underlying bytes (1.7 intro.memory) making up the object can be copied into an array of byte-character type.
Add the indicated text to 3.9.1 basic.fundamental paragraph 1:
Objects declared as characters (char) shall be large enough to store any member of the implementation's basic character set. If a character from this set is stored in a character object, the integral value of that character object is equal to the value of the single character literal form of that character. It is implementation-defined whether a char object can hold negative values. Characters can be explicitly declared unsigned or signed. Plain char, signed char, and unsigned char are three distinct types, called the byte-character types. A char, a signed char, and an unsigned char occupy the same amount of storage and have the same alignment requirements (3.9 basic.types); that is, they have the same object representation. For byte-character types, all bits of the object representation participate in the value representation. For unsigned byte-character types, all possible bit patterns of the value representation represent numbers. These requirements do not hold for other types. In any particular implementation, a plain char object can take on either the same values as a signed char or an unsigned char; which one is implementation-defined.
Change 3.10 basic.lval paragraph 15 last bullet from
to
Notes from October 2003 meeting:
It appears that in C99 signed char may have padding bits but no trap representation, whereas in C++ signed char has no padding bits but may have -0. A memcpy in C++ would have to copy the array preserving the actual representation and not just the value.
March 2004: The liaisons to the C committee have been asked to tell us whether this change would introduce any unnecessary incompatibilities with C.
Notes from October 2004 meeting:
The C99 Standard appears to be inconsistent in its requirements. For example, 6.2.6.1 paragraph 4 says:
The value may be copied into an object of type unsigned char [n] (e.g., by memcpy); the resulting set of bytes is called the object representation of the value.
On the other hand, 6.2 paragraph 6 says,
If a value is copied into an object having no declared type using memcpy or memmove, or is copied as an array of character type, then the effective type of the modified object for that access and for subsequent accesses that do not modify the value is the effective type of the object from which the value is copied, if it has one.
Mike Miller will investigate further.
The descriptions of explicit (5.2.9 expr.static.cast paragraph 9) and implicit (4.11 conv.mem paragraph 2) pointer-to-member conversions differ in two significant ways:
(This situation cannot arise in an implicit pointer-to-member conversion where the source value is something like &X::f, since you can only implicitly convert from pointer-to-base-member to pointer-to-derived-member. However, if the source value is the result of an explicit "up-cast," the target type of the conversion might still not contain the member referred to by the source value.)
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:
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:
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:
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;
have the same semantics in C++ as it does in C. Like it or not, the
subexpression v = 42 has the type ``reference to volatile int,''
so if this statement has any meaning at all, the meaning must be to store 42
in v and then fetch the value of v to assign it to i.
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;
if the intent is to store 42 in v and then fetch the (possibly
changed) value of v, or
v = 42;
i = 42;
if the intent is to store 42 in both v and i.
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.
At least a couple of places in the IS state that indirection through a null pointer produces undefined behavior: 1.9 intro.execution paragraph 4 gives "dereferencing the null pointer" as an example of undefined behavior, and 8.3.2 dcl.ref paragraph 4 (in a note) uses this supposedly undefined behavior as justification for the nonexistence of "null references."
However, 5.3.1 expr.unary.op paragraph 1, which describes the unary "*" operator, does not say that the behavior is undefined if the operand is a null pointer, as one might expect. Furthermore, at least one passage gives dereferencing a null pointer well-defined behavior: 5.2.8 expr.typeid paragraph 2 says
If the lvalue expression is obtained by applying the unary * operator to a pointer and the pointer is a null pointer value (4.10 conv.ptr), the typeid expression throws the bad_typeid exception (18.5.3 lib.bad.typeid).
This is inconsistent and should be cleaned up.
Bill Gibbons:
At one point we agreed that dereferencing a null pointer was not undefined; only using the resulting value had undefined behavior.
For example:
char *p = 0;
char *q = &*p;
Similarly, dereferencing a pointer to the end of an array should be allowed as long as the value is not used:
char a[10];
char *b = &a[10]; // equivalent to "char *b = &*(a+10);"
Both cases come up often enough in real code that they should be allowed.
Mike Miller:
I can see the value in this, but it doesn't seem to be well reflected in the wording of the Standard. For instance, presumably *p above would have to be an lvalue in order to be the operand of "&", but the definition of "lvalue" in 3.10 basic.lval paragraph 2 says that "an lvalue refers to an object." What's the object in *p? If we were to allow this, we would need to augment the definition to include the result of dereferencing null and one-past-the-end-of-array.
Tom Plum:
Just to add one more recollection of the intent: I was very happy when (I thought) we decided that it was only the attempt to actually fetch a value that creates undefined behavior. The words which (I thought) were intended to clarify that are the first three sentences of the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion, 4.1 conv.lval:
An lvalue (3.10 basic.lval) of a non-function, non-array type T can be converted to an rvalue. If T is an incomplete type, a program that necessitates this conversion is ill-formed. If the object to which the lvalue refers is not an object of type T and is not an object of a type derived from T, or if the object is uninitialized, a program that necessitates this conversion has undefined behavior.
In other words, it is only the act of "fetching", of lvalue-to-rvalue conversion, that triggers the ill-formed or undefined behavior. Simply forming the lvalue expression, and then for example taking its address, does not trigger either of those errors. I described this approach to WG14 and it may have been incorporated into C 1999.
Mike Miller:
If we admit the possibility of null lvalues, as Tom is suggesting here, that significantly undercuts the rationale for prohibiting "null references" -- what is a reference, after all, but a named lvalue? If it's okay to create a null lvalue, as long as I don't invoke the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion on it, why shouldn't I be able to capture that null lvalue as a reference, with the same restrictions on its use?
I am not arguing in favor of null references. I don't want them in the language. What I am saying is that we need to think carefully about adopting the permissive approach of saying that it's all right to create null lvalues, as long as you don't use them in certain ways. If we do that, it will be very natural for people to question why they can't pass such an lvalue to a function, as long as the function doesn't do anything that is not permitted on a null lvalue.
If we want to allow &*(p=0), maybe we should change the definition of "&" to handle dereferenced null specially, just as typeid has special handling, rather than changing the definition of lvalue to include dereferenced nulls, and similarly for the array_end+1 case. It's not as general, but I think it might cause us fewer problems in the long run.
Notes from the October 2003 meeting:
See also issue 315, which deals with the call of a static member function through a null pointer.
We agreed that the approach in the standard seems okay: p = 0; *p; is not inherently an error. An lvalue-to-rvalue conversion would give it undefined behavior.
Proposed resolution (October, 2004):
(Note: the resolution of issue 453 also resolves part of this issue.)
Add the indicated words to 3.10 basic.lval paragraph 2:
An lvalue refers to an object or function or is an empty lvalue (5.3.1 expr.unary.op).
Add the indicated words to 5.3.1 expr.unary.op paragraph 1:
The unary * operator performs indirection: the expression to which it is applied shall be a pointer to an object type, or a pointer to a function type and the result is an lvalue referring to the object or function to which the expression points, if any. If the pointer is a null pointer value (4.10 conv.ptr) or points one past the last element of an array object (5.7 expr.add), the result is an empty lvalue and does not refer to any object or function. An empty lvalue is not modifiable. If the type of the expression is “pointer to T,” the type of the result is “T.” [Note: a pointer to an incomplete type (other than cv void) can be dereferenced. The lvalue thus obtained can be used in limited ways (to initialize a reference, for example); this lvalue must not be converted to an rvalue, see 4.1 conv.lval.—end note]
Add the indicated words to 4.1 conv.lval paragraph 1:
If the object to which the lvalue refers is not an object of type T and is not an object of a type derived from T, or if the object is uninitialized, or if the lvalue is an empty lvalue (5.3.1 expr.unary.op), a program that necessitates this conversion has undefined behavior.
Change 1.9 intro.execution as indicated:
Certain other operations are described in this International Standard as undefined (for example, the effect ofdereferencing the null pointerdivision by zero).
Note (March, 2005):
The 10/2004 resolution interacts with the resolution of issue 73. We added wording to 3.9.2 basic.compound paragraph 3 to the effect that a pointer containing the address one past the end of an array is considered to “point to” another object of the same type that might be located there. The 10/2004 resolution now says that it would be undefined behavior to use such a pointer to fetch the value of that object. There is at least the appearance of conflict here; it may be all right, but it at needs to be discussed further.
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The CWG agreed that there is no contradiction between this direction and the resolution of issue 73. However, “not modifiable” is a compile-time concept, while in fact this deals with runtime values and thus should produce undefined behavior instead. Also, there are other contexts in which lvalues can occur, such as the left operand of . or .*, which should also be restricted. Additional drafting is required.
The Standard does not fully describe the syntax to be used when a member of an explicitly-specialized member class or member class template is defined in namespace scope. 14.7.3 temp.expl.spec paragraph 4 says that the “explicit specialization syntax” (presumably referring to “template<>”) is not used in defining a member of an explicit specialization when a class template is explicitly specialized as a class. However, nothing is said anywhere about how to define a member of a specialization when:
the entity being specialized is a class (member of a template class) rather than a class template.
the result of the specialization is a class template rather than a class (cf 14.7.3 temp.expl.spec paragraph 18, which describes this case as a “member template that... remain[s] unspecialized”).
(See paper J16/05-0148 = WG21 N1888 for further details, including a survey of existing implementation practice.)
Notes from the October, 2005 meeting:
The CWG felt that the best approach, balancing consistency with implementation issues and existing practice, would be to require that template<> be used when defining members of all explicit specializations, including those currently covered by 14.7.3 temp.expl.spec paragraph 4.
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 (3.7.2 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.
Here's an example:
typedef struct S { ... } S;
void fs(S *x) { ... }
The big question is, to what declaration does the reference to identifier S actually refer? Is it the S that's declared as a typedef name, or the S that's declared as a class name (or in C terms, as a struct tag)? (In either case, there's clearly only one type to which it could refer, since a typedef declaration does not introduce a new type. But the debugger apparently cares about more than just the identity of the type.)
Here's a classical, closely related example:
struct stat { ... };
int stat();
... stat( ... ) ...
Does the identifier stat refer to the class or the function? Obviously, in C, you can't refer to the struct tag without using the struct keyword, because it is in a different name space, so the reference must be to the function. In C++, the reference is also to the function, but for a completely different reason.
Now in C, typedef names and function names are in the same name space, so the natural extrapolation would be that, in the first example, S refers to the typedef declaration, as it would in C. But C++ is not C. For the purposes of this discussion, there are two important differences between C and C++
The first difference is that, in C++, typedef names and class names are not in separate name spaces. On the other hand, according to section 3.3.7 basic.scope.hiding (Name hiding), paragraph 2:
A class name (9.1) or enumeration name (7.2) can be hidden by the name of an object, function, or enumerator declared in the same scope. If a class or enumeration name and an object, function, or enumerator are declared in the same scope (in any order) with the same name, the class or enumeration name is hidden wherever the object, function, or enumerator name is visible.
Please consider carefully the phrase I have highlighted, and the fact that a typedef name is not the name of an object, function or enumerator. As a result, this example:
struct stat { ... };
typedef int stat;
Which would be perfectly legal in C, is disallowed in C++, both implicitly (see the above quote) and explicitly (see section 7.1.3 dcl.typedef (The typedef specifier), paragraph 3):
In a given scope, a typedef specifier shall not be used to redefine the name of any type declared in that scope to refer to a different type. Similarly, in a given scope, a class or enumeration shall not be declared with the same name as a typedef-name that is declared in that scope and refers to a type other than the class or enumeration itself.
From which we can conclude that in C++ typedef names do not hide class names declared in the same scope. If they did, the above example would be legal.
The second difference is that, in C++, a typedef name that refers to a class is a class-name; see 7.1.3 dcl.typedef paragraph 4:
A typedef-name that names a class is a class-name(9.1). If a typedef-name is used following the class-key in an elaborated-type-specifier (7.1.5.3) or in the class-head of a class declaration (9), or is used as the identifier in the declarator for a constructor or destructor declaration (12.1, 12.4), the program is ill-formed.
This implies, for instance, that a typedef-name referring to a class can be used in a nested-name-specifier (i.e. before :: in a qualified name) or following ~ to refer to a destructor. Note that using a typedef-name as a class-name in an elaborated-type-specifier is not allowed. For example:
struct X { };
typedef struct X X2;
X x; // legal
X2 x2; // legal
struct X sx; // legal
struct X2 sx2; // illegal
The final relevant piece of the standard is 7.1.3 dcl.typedef paragraph 2:
In a given scope, a typedef specifier can be used to redefine the name of any type declared in that scope to refer to the type to which it already refers.
This of course is what allows the original example, to which let us now return:
typedef struct S { ... } S;
void fs(S *x) { ... }
The question, again is, to which declaration of S does the reference actually refer? In C, it would clearly be to the second, since the first would be accessible only by using the struct keyword. In C++, if typedef names hid class names declared in the same scope, the answer would be the same. But we've already seen that typedef names do not hide class names declared in the same scope.
So to which declaration does the reference to S refer? The answer is that it doesn't matter. The second declaration of S, which appears to be a declaration of a typedef name, is actually a declaration of a class name (7.1.3 dcl.typedef paragraph 4), and as such is simply a redeclaration. Consider the following example:
typedef int I, I; extern int x, x; void f(), f();
To which declaration would a reference to I, x or f refer? It doesn't matter, because the second declaration of each is really just a redeclaration of the thing declared in the first declaration. So to save time, effort and complexity, the second declaration of each doesn't add any entry to the compiler's symbol table.
Note (March, 2005):
Matt Austern: Is this legal?
struct A { };
typedef struct A A;
struct A* p;
Am I right in reading the standard [to say that this is ill-formed]? On the one hand it's a nice uniform rule. On the other hand, it seems likely to confuse users. Most people are probably used to thinking that 'typedef struct A A' is a null operation, and, if this code really is illegal, it would seem to be a gratuitous C/C++ incompatibility.
Mike Miller: I think you're right. 7.1.3 dcl.typedef paragraph 1:
A name declared with the typedef specifier becomes a typedef-name.
7.1.3 dcl.typedef paragraph 2:
In a given non-class scope, a typedef specifier can be used to redefine the name of any type declared in that scope to refer to the type to which it already refers.
After the typedef declaration in the example, the name X has been “redefined” — it is no longer just a class-name, it has been “redefined” to be a typedef-name (that, by virtue of the fact that it refers to a class type, is also a class-name).
John Spicer: In C, and originally in C++, an elaborated-type-specifier did not consider typedef names, so “struct X* x” would find the class and not the typedef.
When C++ was changed to make typedefs visible to elaborated-type-specifier lookups, I believe this issue was overlooked and inadvertantly made ill-formed.
I suspect we need add text saying that if a given scope contains both a class/enum and a typedef, that an elaborated type specifier lookup finds the class/enum.
Mike Miller: I'm a little uncomfortable with this approach. The model we have for declaring a typedef in the same scope as a class/enum is redefinition, not hiding (like the “struct stat” hack). This approach seems to assume that the typedef hides the class/enum, which can then be found by an elaborated-type-specifier, just as if it were hidden by a variable, function, or enumerator.
Also, this approach reduces but doesn't eliminate the incompatibility with C. For example:
struct S { };
{
typedef struct S S;
struct S* p; // still ill-formed
}
My preference would be for something following the basic principle that declaring a typedef-name T in a scope where T already names the type designated by the typedef should have no effect on whether an elaborated-type-specifier in that or a nested scope is well-formed or not. Another way of saying that is that a typedef-name that designates a same-named class or enumeration in the same or a containing scope is transparent with respect to elaborated-type-specifiers.
John Spicer: This strikes me as being a rather complicated solution. When we made the change to make typedefs visible to elaborated-type-specifiers we did so knowing it would make some C cases ill-formed, so this does not bother me. We've lived with the C incompatibility for many years now, so I don't personally feel a need to undo it. I also don't like the fact that you have to essentially do the old-style elaborated-type-specifier lookup to check the result of the lookup that found the typedef.
I continue to prefer the direction I described earlier where if a given scope contains both a class/enum and a typedef, that an elaborated-type-specifier lookup finds the class/enum.
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The CWG agreed with John Spicer's approach, i.e., permitting a typedef-name to be used in an elaborated-type-specifier only if it is declared in the same scope as the class or enumeration it names.
7.3.1.2 namespace.memdef paragraph 3 says,
If a friend declaration in a non-local class first declares a class or function the friend class or function is a member of the innermost enclosing namespace... When looking for a prior declaration of a class or a function declared as a friend, scopes outside the innermost enclosing namespace scope are not considered.It is not clear from this passage how to determine whether an entity is "first declared" in a friend declaration. One question is whether a using-declaration influences this determination. For instance:
void foo();
namespace A{
using ::foo;
class X{
friend void foo();
};
}
Is the friend declaration a reference to ::foo or
a different foo?
Part of the question involves determining the meaning of the word "synonym" in 7.3.3 namespace.udecl paragraph 1:
A using-declaration introduces a name into the declarative region in which the using-declaration appears. That name is a synonym for the name of some entity declared elsewhere.Is "using ::foo;" the declaration of a function or not?
More generally, the question is how to describe the lookup of the name in a friend declaration.
John Spicer: When a declaration specifies an unqualified name, that name is declared, not looked up. There is a mechanism in which that declaration is linked to a prior declaration, but that mechanism is not, in my opinion, via normal name lookup. So, the friend always declares a member of the nearest namespace scope regardless of how that name may or may not already be declared there.
Mike Miller: 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual paragraph 7 says:
A name used in the definition of a class X outside of a member function body or nested class definition shall be declared in one of the following ways:... [Note: when looking for a prior declaration of a class or function introduced by a friend declaration, scopes outside of the innermost enclosing namespace scope are not considered.]The presence of this note certainly implies that this paragraph describes the lookup of names in friend declarations.
John Spicer: It most certainly does not. If that section described the friend lookup it would yield the incorrect results for the friend declarations of f and g below. I don't know why that note is there, but it can't be taken to mean that that is how the friend lookup is done.
void f(){}
void g(){}
class B {
void g();
};
class A : public B {
void f();
friend void f(); // ::f not A::f
friend void g(); // ::g not B::g
};
Mike Miller: If so, the lookups for friend functions and classes behave differently. Consider the example in 3.4.4 basic.lookup.elab paragraph 3:
struct Base {
struct Data; // OK: declares nested Data
friend class Data; // OK: nested Data is a friend
};
If the friend declaration is not a reference to ::foo, there is a related but separate question: does the friend declaration introduce a conflicting (albeit "invisible") declaration into namespace A, or is it simply a reference to an as-yet undeclared (and, in this instance, undeclarable) A::foo? Another part of the example in 3.4.4 basic.lookup.elab paragraph 3 is related:
struct Data {
friend struct Glob; // OK: Refers to (as yet) undeclared Glob
// at global scope.
};
John Spicer: You can't refer to something that has not yet been declared. The friend is a declaration of Glob, it just happens to declare it in a such a way that its name cannot be used until it is redeclared.
(A somewhat similar question has been raised in connection with issue 36. Consider:
namespace N {
struct S { };
}
using N::S;
struct S; // legal?
According to 9.1 class.name paragraph 2,
A declaration consisting solely of class-key identifier ; is either a redeclaration of the name in the current scope or a forward declaration of the identifier as a class name.
Should the elaborated type declaration in this example be considered a redeclaration of N::S or an invalid forward declaration of a different class?)
(See also issues 95, 136, 139, 143, 165, and 166, as well as paper J16/00-0006 = WG21 N1229.)
Here's an interesting case:
int f;
namespace N {
extern "C" void f () {}
}
As far as I can tell, this is not precluded by the ODR section
(3.2
basic.def.odr)
or the extern "C" section (7.5
dcl.link).
However, I believe many compilers
do not do name mangling on variables and (more-or-less by definition)
on extern "C" functions. That means the variable and the function
in the above end up having the same name at link time. EDG's front
end, g++, and the Sun compiler all get essentially the same error,
which is a compile-time assembler-level error because of the
duplicate symbols (in other words, they fail to check for this, and the
assembler complains). MSVC++ 7 links the program without error,
though I'm not sure how it is interpreted.
Do we intend for this case to be valid? If not, is it a compile time error (required), or some sort of ODR violation (no diagnostic required)? If we do intend for it to be valid, are we forcing many implementations to break binary compatibility by requiring them to mangle variable names?
Personally, I favor a compile-time error, and an ODR prohibition on such things in separate translation units.
Notes from the 4/02 meeting:
The working group agreed with the proposal. We feel a diagnostic should be required for declarations within one translation unit. We also noted that if the variable in global scope in the above example were declared static we would still expect an error.
Relevant sections in the standard are 7.5 dcl.link paragraph 6 and 3.5 basic.link paragraph 9. We feel that the definition should be written such that the entities in conflict are not "the same entity" but merely not allowed together.
Additional note (September, 2004)
This problem need not involve a conflict between a function and a variable; it can also arise with two variable declarations:
int x;
namespace N {
extern "C" int x;
}
This case is nonstandard by 8.3 dcl.meaning paragraph 1 (there is a requirement that the specialization first be declared within the namespace before being defined outside of the namespace), but probably should be allowed:
namespace NS1 {
template<class T>
class CDoor {
public:
int mtd() { return 1; }
};
}
template<> int NS1::CDoor<char>::mtd()
{
return 0;
}
Notes from October 2002 meeting:
There was agreement that we wanted to allow this.
EDG rejects this code:
template <typename T>
struct S {};
void f (S<int (*)[]>);
G++ accepts it.
This is another case where the standard isn't very clear:
The language from 8.3.5 dcl.fct is:
If the type of a parameter includes a type of the form "pointer to array of unknown bound of T" or "reference to array of unknown bound of T," the program is ill-formed.Since "includes a type" is not a term defined in the standard, we're left to guess what this means. (It would be better if this were a recursive definition, the way a type theoretician would do it:
Notes from April 2003 meeting:
We agreed that the example should be allowed.
There is an inconsistency in the handling of references vs pointers in user defined conversions and overloading. The reason for that is that the combination of 8.5.3 dcl.init.ref and 4.4 conv.qual circumvents the standard way of ranking conversion functions, which was probably not the intention of the designers of the standard.
Let's start with some examples, to show what it is about:
struct Z { Z(){} };
struct A {
Z x;
operator Z *() { return &x; }
operator const Z *() { return &x; }
};
struct B {
Z x;
operator Z &() { return x; }
operator const Z &() { return x; }
};
int main()
{
A a;
Z *a1=a;
const Z *a2=a; // not ambiguous
B b;
Z &b1=b;
const Z &b2=b; // ambiguous
}
So while both classes A and B are structurally equivalent, there is a difference in operator overloading. I want to start with the discussion of the pointer case (const Z *a2=a;): 13.3.3 over.match.best is used to select the best viable function. Rule 4 selects A::operator const Z*() as best viable function using 13.3.3.2 over.ics.rank since the implicit conversion sequence const Z* -> const Z* is a better conversion sequence than Z* -> const Z*.
So what is the difference to the reference case? Cv-qualification conversion is only applicable for pointers according to 4.4 conv.qual. According to 8.5.3 dcl.init.ref paragraphs 4-7 references are initialized by binding using the concept of reference-compatibility. The problem with this is, that in this context of binding, there is no conversion, and therefore there is also no comparing of conversion sequences. More exactly all conversions can be considered identity conversions according to 13.3.3.1.4 over.ics.ref paragraph 1, which compare equal and which has the same effect. So binding const Z* to const Z* is as good as binding const Z* to Z* in terms of overloading. Therefore const Z &b2=b; is ambiguous. [13.3.3.1.4 over.ics.ref paragraph 5 and 13.3.3.2 over.ics.rank paragraph 3 rule 3 (S1 and S2 are reference bindings ...) do not seem to apply to this case]
There are other ambiguities, that result in the special treatment of references: Example:
struct A {int a;};
struct B: public A { B() {}; int b;};
struct X {
B x;
operator A &() { return x; }
operator B &() { return x; }
};
main()
{
X x;
A &g=x; // ambiguous
}
Since both references of class A and B are reference compatible with references of class A and since from the point of ranking of implicit conversion sequences they are both identity conversions, the initialization is ambiguous.
So why should this be a defect?
So overall I think this was not the intention of the authors of the standard.
So how could this be fixed? For comparing conversion sequences (and only for comparing) reference binding should be treated as if it was a normal assignment/initialization and cv-qualification would have to be defined for references. This would affect 8.5.3 dcl.init.ref paragraph 6, 4.4 conv.qual and probably 13.3.3.2 over.ics.rank paragraph 3.
Another fix could be to add a special case in 13.3.3 over.match.best paragraph 1.
Does the restriction in 11.5 class.protected apply to upcasts across protected inheritance, too? For instance,
struct B {
int i;
};
struct I: protected B { };
struct D: I {
void f(I* ip) {
B* bp = ip; // well-formed?
bp->i = 5; // aka "ip->i = 5;"
}
};
I think the rationale for the 11.5 class.protected restriction applies equally well here — you don't know whether ip points to a D object or not, so D::f can't be trusted to treat the protected B subobject consistently with the policies of its actual complete object type.
The current treatment of “accessible base class” in 11.2 class.access.base paragraph 4 clearly makes the conversion from I* to B* well-formed. I think that's wrong and needs to be fixed. The rationale for the accessibility of a base class is whether “an invented public member” of the base would be accessible at the point of reference, although we obscured that a bit in the reformulation; it seems to me that the invented member ought to be considered a non-static member for this purpose and thus subject to 11.5 class.protected.
(See also issues 385 and 471.).Notes from October 2004 meeting:
The CWG tentatively agreed that casting across protective inheritance should be subject to the additional restriction in 11.5 class.protected.
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.
Mark Mitchell raised a number of issues related to the resolution of issue 244 and of destructor lookup in general.
Issue 244 says:
... in a qualified-id of the form:::opt nested-name-specifieropt class-name :: ~ class-name
the second class-name is looked up in the same scope as the first.
But if the reference is "p->X::~X()", the first class-name is looked up in two places (normal lookup and a lookup in the class of p). Does the new wording mean:
This is a test case that illustrates the issue:
struct A {
typedef A C;
};
typedef A B;
void f(B* bp) {
bp->B::~B(); // okay B found by normal lookup
bp->C::~C(); // okay C found by class lookup
bp->B::~C(); // B found by normal lookup C by class -- okay?
bp->C::~B(); // C found by class lookup B by normal -- okay?
}
A second issue concerns destructor references when the class involved is a template class.
namespace N {
template <typename T> struct S {
~S();
};
}
void f(N::S<int>* s) {
s->N::S<int>::~S();
}
The issue here is that the grammar uses "~class-name" for destructor names, but in this case S is a template name when looked up in N.
Finally, what about cases like:
template <typename T> void f () {
typename T::B x;
x.template A<T>::template B<T>::~B();
}
When parsing the template definition, what checks can be done on "~B"?
Sandor Mathe adds :
The standard correction for issue 244 (now in DR status) is still incomplete.
Paragraph 5 of 3.4.3 basic.lookup.qual is not applicable for p->T::~T since there is no nested-name-specifier. Section 3.4.5 basic.lookup.classref describes the lookup of p->~T but p->T::~T is still not described. There are examples (which are non-normative) that illustrate this sort of lookup but they still leave questions unanswered. The examples imply that the name after ~ should be looked up in the same scope as the name before the :: but it is not stated. The problem is that the name to the left of the :: can be found in two different scopes. Consider the following:
struct S {
struct C { ~C() { } };
};
typedef S::C D;
int main() {
D* p;
p->C::~D(); // valid?
}
Should the destructor call be valid? If there were a nested name specifier, then D should be looked for in the same scope as C. But here, C is looked for in 2 different ways. First, it is searched for in the type of the left hand side of -> and it is also looked for in the lexical context. It is found in one or if both, they must match. So, C is found in the scope of what p points at. Do you only look for D there? If so, this is invalid. If not, you would then look for D in the context of the expression and find it. They refer to the same underlying destructor so this is valid. The intended resolution of the original defect report of the standard was that the name before the :: did not imply a scope and you did not look for D inside of C. However, it was not made clear whether this was to be resolved by using the same lookup mechanism or by introducing a new form of lookup which is to look in the left hand side if that is where C was found, or in the context of the expression if that is where C was found. Of course, this begs the question of what should happen when it is found in both? Consider the modification to the above case when C is also found in the context of the expression. If you only look where you found C, is this now valid because it is in 1 of the two scopes or is it invalid because C was in both and D is only in 1?
struct S {
struct C { ~C() { } };
};
typedef S::C D;
typedef S::C C;
int main() {
D* p;
p->C::~D(); // valid?
}
I agree that the intention of the committee is that the original test case in this defect is broken. The standard committee clearly thinks that the last name before the last :: does not induce a new scope which is our current interpretation. However, how this is supposed to work is not defined. This needs clarification of the standard.
Martin Sebor adds this example (September 2003), along with errors produced by the EDG front end:
namespace N {
struct A { typedef A NA; };
template <class T> struct B { typedef B NB; typedef T BT; };
template <template <class> class T> struct C { typedef C NC; typedef T<A> CA; };
}
void foo (N::A *p)
{
p->~NA ();
p->NA::~NA ();
}
template <class T>
void foo (N::B<T> *p)
{
p->~NB ();
p->NB::~NB ();
}
template <class T>
void foo (typename N::B<T>::BT *p)
{
p->~BT ();
p->BT::~BT ();
}
template <template <class> class T>
void foo (N::C<T> *p)
{
p->~NC ();
p->NC::~NC ();
}
template <template <class> class T>
void foo (typename N::C<T>::CA *p)
{
p->~CA ();
p->CA::~CA ();
}
Edison Design Group C/C++ Front End, version 3.3 (Sep 3 2003 11:54:55)
Copyright 1988-2003 Edison Design Group, Inc.
"t.cpp", line 16: error: invalid destructor name for type "N::B<T>"
p->~NB ();
^
"t.cpp", line 17: error: qualifier of destructor name "N::B<T>::NB" does not
match type "N::B<T>"
p->NB::~NB ();
^
"t.cpp", line 30: error: invalid destructor name for type "N::C<T>"
p->~NC ();
^
"t.cpp", line 31: error: qualifier of destructor name "N::C<T>::NC" does not
match type "N::C<T>"
p->NC::~NC ();
^
4 errors detected in the compilation of "t.cpp".
John Spicer: The issue here is that we're unhappy with the destructor names when doing semantic analysis of the template definitions (not during an instantiation).
My personal feeling is that this is reasonable. After all, why would you call p->~NB for a class that you just named as N::B<T> and you could just say p->~B?
Additional note (September, 2004)
The resolution for issue 244 removed the discussion of p->N::~S, where N is a namespace-name. However, the resolution did not make this construct ill-formed; it simply left the semantics undefined. The meaning should either be defined or the construct made ill-formed.
The overload resolution rules for ranking a template against a non-template function differ for conversion functions in a surprising way. 13.3.3 over.match.best lists four checks, the last three concern this report. For the non-conversion operator case, checks 2 and 3 are applicable, whereas for the conversion operator case checks 3 and 4 are applicable. Checks 2 and 4 concern the ranking of argument and return value conversion sequences respectively. Check 3 concerns only the templatedness of the functions being ranked, and will prefer a non-template to a template. Notice that this check happens after argument conversion sequence ranking, but before return value conversion sequence ranking. This has the effect of always selecting a non-template conversion operator, as the following example shows:
struct C
{
inline operator int () { return 1; }
template <class T> inline operator T () { return 0; }
};
inline long f (long x) { return x; }
int
main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
return f (C ());
}
The non-templated C::operator int function will be selected, rather than the apparently better C::operator long<long> instantiation. This is a surprise, and resulted in a bug report where the user expected the template to be selected. In addition some C++ compilers have implemented the overload ranking as if checks 3 and 4 were transposed.
Is this ordering accidental, or is there a rationale?
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The CWG agreed that the template/non-template distinction should be the final tie-breaker.
According to the Standard (although not implemented this way in most implementations), the following code exhibits non-intuitive behavior:
struct T {
operator short() const;
operator int() const;
};
short s;
void f(const T& t) {
s = t; // surprisingly calls T::operator int() const
}
The reason for this choice is 13.6 over.built paragraph 18:
For every triple (L, VQ, R), where L is an arithmetic type, VQ is either volatile or empty, and R is a promoted arithmetic type, there exist candidate operator functions of the form
VQ L& operator=(VQ L&, R);
Because R is a "promoted arithmetic type," the second argument to the built-in assignment operator is int, causing the unexpected choice of conversion function.
Suggested resolution: Provide built-in assignment operators for the unpromoted arithmetic types.
Related to the preceding, but not resolved by the suggested resolution, is the following problem. Given:
struct T {
operator int() const;
operator double() const;
};
I believe the standard requires the following assignment to be ambiguous (even though I expect that would surprise the user):
double x;
void f(const T& t) { x = t; }
The problem is that both of these built-in operator=()s exist (13.6 over.built paragraph 18):
double& operator=(double&, int);
double& operator=(double&, double);
Both are an exact match on the first argument and a user conversion on the second. There is no rule that says one is a better match than the other.
The compilers that I have tried (even in their strictest setting) do not give a peep. I think they are not following the standard. They pick double& operator=(double&, double) and use T::operator double() const.
I hesitate to suggest changes to overload resolution, but a possible resolution might be to introduce a rule that, for built-in operator= only, also considers the conversion sequence from the second to the first type. This would also resolve the earlier question.
It would still leave x += t etc. ambiguous -- which might be the desired behavior and is the current behavior of some compilers.
Notes from the 04/01 meeting:
The difference between initialization and assignment is disturbing. On the other hand, promotion is ubiquitous in the language, and this is the beginning of a very slippery slope (as the second report above demonstrates).
Static data members of template classes and of nested classes of template classes are not themselves templates but receive much the same treatment as template. For instance, 14 temp paragraph 1 says that templates are only "classes or functions" but implies that "a static data member of a class template or of a class nested within a class template" is defined using the template-declaration syntax.
There are many places in the clause, however, where static data members of one sort or another are overlooked. For instance, 14 temp paragraph 6 allows static data members of class templates to be declared with the export keyword. I would expect that static data members of (non-template) classes nested within class templates could also be exported, but they are not mentioned here.
Paragraph 8, however, overlooks static data members altogether and deals only with "templates" in defining the effect of the export keyword; there is no description of the semantics of defining a static data member of a template to be exported.
These are just two instances of a systematic problem. The entire clause needs to be examined to determine which statements about "templates" apply to static data members, and which statements about "static data members of class templates" also apply to static data members of non-template classes nested within class templates.
(The question also applies to member functions of template classes; see issue 217, where the phrase "non-template function" in 8.3.6 dcl.fct.default paragraph 4 is apparently intended not to include non-template member functions of template classes. See also issue 108, which would benefit from understanding nested classes of class templates as templates. Also, see issue 249, in which the usage of the phrase "member function template" is questioned.)
Notes from the 4/02 meeting:
Daveed Vandevoorde will propose appropriate terminology.
According to 14.1 temp.param paragraph 3, the following fragment is ill-formed:
template <class T>
class X{
friend void T::foo();
};
In the friend declaration, the T:: part is a nested-name-specifier (8 dcl.decl paragraph 4), and T must be a class-name or a namespace-name (5.1 expr.prim paragraph 7). However, according to 14.1 temp.param paragraph 3, it is only a type-name. The fragment should be well-formed, and instantiations of the template allowed as long as the actual template argument is a class which provides a function member foo. As a result of this defect, any usage of template parameters in nested names is ill-formed, e.g., in the example of 14.6 temp.res paragraph 2.
Notes from 04/00 meeting:
The discussion at the meeting revealed a self-contradiction in the current IS in the description of nested-name-specifiers. According to the grammar in 5.1 expr.prim paragraph 7, the components of a nested-name-specifier must be either class-names or namespace-names, i.e., the constraint is syntactic rather than semantic. On the other hand, 3.4.3 basic.lookup.qual paragraph 1 describes a semantic constraint: only object, function, and enumerator names are ignored in the lookup for the component, and the program is ill-formed if the lookup finds anything other than a class-name or namespace-name. It was generally agreed that the syntactic constraint should be eliminated, i.e., that the grammar ought to be changed not to use class-or-namespace-name.
A related point is the explicit prohibition of use of template parameters in elaborated-type-specifiers in 7.1.5.3 dcl.type.elab paragraph 2. This rule was the result of an explicit Committee decision and should not be unintentionally voided by the resolution of this issue.
Proposed resolution (04/01):
Change 5.1 expr.prim paragraph 7 and A.4 gram.expr from
to
This resolution depends on the resolutions for issues 245 (to change the name lookup rules in elaborated-type-specifiers to include all type-names) and 283 (to categorize template type-parameters as type-names).
Notes from 10/01 meeting:
There was some sentiment for going with simply identifier in front of the "::", and stronger sentiment for going with something with a more descriptive name if possible. See also issue 180.
Notes from April 2003 meeting:
This was partly resolved by the changes for issue 125. However, we also need to add a semantic check in 3.4.3 basic.lookup.qual to allow T::foo and we need to reword the first sentence of 3.4.3 basic.lookup.qual.
Proposed resolution (October, 2004):
Change 3.4.3 basic.lookup.qual paragraph 1 as follows:
The name of a class or namespace member can be referred to after the :: scope resolution operator (5.1 expr.prim) applied to a nested-name-specifier that nominates its class or namespace. During the lookup for a name preceding the :: scope resolution operator, object, function, and enumerator names are ignored. If the name foundis not a class-name (clause 9 class) or namespace-name (7.3.1 namespace.def)does not designate a class or namespace, the program is ill-formed. [...]
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The 10/2004 resolution does not take into account the fact that template type parameters do not designate class types in the context of the template definition. Further drafting is required.
The following is the wording from 14.2 temp.names paragraphs 4 and 5 that discusses the use of the "template" keyword following . or -> and in qualified names.
class X {
public:
template<std::size_t> X* alloc();
template<std::size_t> static X* adjust();
};
template<class T> void f(T* p) {
T* p1 = p->alloc<200>();
// ill-formed: < means less than
T* p2 = p->template alloc<200>();
// OK: < starts template argument list
T::adjust<100>();
// ill-formed: < means less than
T::template adjust<100>();
// OK: < starts explicit qualification
}
—end example]
If a name prefixed by the keyword template is not the name of a member template, the program is ill-formed. [Note: the keyword template may not be applied to non-template members of class templates. ]
The whole point of this feature is to say that the "template" keyword is needed to indicate that a "<" begins a template parameter list in certain contexts. The constraints in paragraph 5 leave open to debate certain cases.First, I think it should be made more clear that the template name must be followed by a template argument list when the "template" keyword is used in these contexts. If we don't make this clear, we would have to add several semantic clarifications instead. For example, if you say "p->template f()", and "f" is an overload set containing both templates and nontemplates: a) is this valid? b) are the nontemplates in the overload set ignored? If the user is forced to write "p->template f<>()" it is clear that this is valid, and it is equally clear that nontemplates in the overload set are ignored. As this feature was added purely to provide syntactic guidance, I think it is important that it otherwise have no semantic implications.
I propose that paragraph 5 be modified to:
(See also issue 30 and document J16/00-0008 = WG21 N1231.)
Notes from 04/00 meeting:
The discussion of this issue revived interest in issues 11 and 109.
Notes from the October 2003 meeting:
We reviewed John Spicer's paper N1528 and agreed with his recommendations therein.
The EDG front-end accepts:
template <typename T>
struct A {
template <typename U>
struct B {};
};
template <typename T>
struct C : public A<T>::template B<T> {
};
It rejects this code if the base-specifier is spelled A<T>::B<T>.
However, the grammar for a base-specifier does not allow the template keyword.
Suggested resolution:
It seems to me that a consistent approach to the solution that looks like it will be adopted for issue 180 (which deals with the typename keyword in similar contexts) would be to assume that B is a template if it is followed by a "<". After all, an expression cannot appear in this context.Notes from the 4/02 meeting:
We agreed that template must be allowed in this context. The syntax needs to be changed. We also opened the related issue 343.
Consider this example:
class Foo {
public:
template< typename T > T *get();
};
template< typename U >
U *testFoo( Foo &foo ) {
return foo.get< U >(); //#1
}
I am under the impression that this should compile without requiring the insertion of the template keyword before get in the expression at //#1. This notion is supported by this note excerpted from 14.2 temp.names/5:
[Note: just as is the case with the typename prefix, the template prefix is allowed in cases where it is not strictly necessary; i.e., when the expression on the left of the -> or ., or the nested-name-specifier is not dependent on a template parameter.]
But 14.2 temp.names/4 contains this text:
When the name of a member template specialization appears after . or -> in a postfix-expression, or after nested-name-specifier in a qualified-id, and the postfix-expression or qualified-id explicitly depends on a template-parameter (14.6.2), the member template name must be prefixed by the keyword template. Otherwise the name is assumed to name a non-template.
The only way that I can read this to support my assumption above is if I assume that the phrase postfix-expression is used twice above with different meaning. That is I read the first use as referring to the full expression while the second use refers to the subexpression preceding the operator. Is this the correct determination of intent? I find this text confusing. Would it be an improvement if the second occurrence of "postfix-expression" should be replaced by "the subexpression preceding the operator". Of course that begs the question "where is subexpression actually defined in the standard?"
John Spicer: I agree that the code should work, and that we should tweak the wording.
Is this allowed?
template<typename T>
struct X
{
static int s[];
int c;
};
template<typename T>
int X<T>::s[sizeof(X<T>)];
int* p = X<char>::s;
I have a compiler claiming that, for the purpose of sizeof(), X<T> is an incomplete type, when it tries to instantiate X<T>::s. It seems to me that X<char> should be considered complete enough for sizeof even though the size of s isn't known yet.
John Spicer: This is a problematic construct that is currently allowed but which I think should be disallowed.
I tried this with a number of compilers. None of which did the right thing. The EDG front end accepts it, but gives X<...>::s the wrong size.
It appears that most compilers evaluate the "declaration" part of the static data member definition only once when the definition is processed. The initializer (if any) is evaluated for each instantiation.
This problem is solvable, and if it were the only issue with incomplete arrays as template static data members, then it would make sense to solve it, but there are other problems.
The first problem is that the size of the static data member is only known if a template definition of the static data member is present. This is weird to start with, but it also means that sizes would not be available in general for exported templates.
The second problem concerns the rules for specialization. An explicit specialization for a template instance can be provided up until the point that a use is made that would cause an implicit instantiation. A reference like "sizeof(X<char>::s)" is not currently a reference that would cause an implicit instantiation of X<char>::s. This means you could use such a sizeof and later specialize the static data member with a different size, meaning the earlier sizeof gave the wrong result. We could, of course, change the "use" rules, but I'd rather see us require that static data members that are arrays have a size specified in the class or have a size based on their initializer.
Notes from the October 2003 meeting:
The example provided is valid according to the current standard. A static data member must be instantiated (including the processing of its initializer, if any) if there is any reference to it. The compiler need not, however, put out a definition in that translation unit. The standard doesn't really have a concept of a "partial instantiation" for a static data member, and although we considered adding that, we decided that to get all the size information that seems to be available one needs a full instantiation in any case, so there's no need for the concept of a partial instantiation.
Is this program valid?
template <typename T> int g(int);
class h{};
template <typename T> int l(){h j; return g<T>(j);}
template <typename T> int g(const h&);
class j{};
int jj(){return l<j>();}
The key issue is when "g" is looked up, i.e., whether both overloaded template "g" functions are available at the call site or only the first. Clearly, the entire postfix-expression "g<T>(j)" is dependent, but when is the set of available template functions determined?
For consistency with the rules about when the set of available overloads is determined when calling a function given by an unqualified-id, I would think that we should postpone determining the set of template functions if (and only if) any of the explicit template arguments are dependent.
John Spicer: I agree that there should be a core issue for this. The definition of "dependent name" (14.6.2 temp.dep paragraph 1) should probably be modified to cover this case. It currently only handles cases where the function name is a simple identifier.
Notes from the March 2004 meeting:
A related issue is a call with a qualified name and dependent arguments, e.g., x::y(depa, depb).
The list of cases in 14.6.1 temp.local about when a template parameter is hidden seems to be incomplete.
Consider
// example-1
struct S {
int C;
template<class> void f();
};
template<class C>
void S::f()
{
C c; // #1
}
Someone asked whether line #1 is well-formed and I responded "no" based on my understanding of the rules in 14.6.1. After a second looking, I've realized that the above case is currently missing from the list.
The list in 14.6.1 covers cases like
// example-2
template<class T>
struct S {
int C;
void f();
};
template<class C>
void S<C>::f()
{
C c; // ERROR: 'C' is 'S::C' not the template parameter
}
or
// example-3
struct A { int C; }
template<class C>
struct S : A {
C c; // ERROR: 'C' is 'A::C', not the template parameter
};
But the case of a 'member template' is missing. I believe it should
follow the same rule as above. The reason is this.
In the case listed in 14.6.1 (having to do with members of classes), the "algorithm" seems to be this:
I believe that any rule, coherent with 14.6.1/5 and 14.6.1/7, for covering the cases of member templates (example-1) will be described by the above "algorithm".
Am I missing something?
[1] of course, the standard text does not formally speak of "template parameter scope", but we all know that the template parameters "live" somewhere. I'm using that terminology to designate the declarative region of the template parameters.
Mike Miller: I have a somewhat different perspective on this question. I think your example-1 is fundamentally different from your example-2 and example-3. Looking, for instance, at your example-2, I see four nested scopes:
namespace scope
template scope (where the parameter is)
class S scope
S::f() block scope
Naturally, S::C hides the template parameter C. The same is true of your example-3, with three scopes:
namespace scope
template scope
class S scope (includes 10.2 base class lookup)
Again, it's clear that the C inherited from A hides the template parameter in the containing scope.
The scopes I see in your example-1, however, are different:
namespace scope
struct S scope
template scope (where the parameter is)
S::f() block scope
Here it seems clear to me that the template parameter hides the class member.
It might help to look at the case where the function template is defined inline in the class:
struct S {
int C;
template<class C> int f() {
C c; // #1
}
};
It would be pretty strange, I think, if the #1 C were the member and not the template parameter. It would also be odd if the name lookup were different between an inline definition and an out-of-line definition.
See also issue 459.
Notes from the March 2004 meeting:
Basically, the standard is okay. We think Gaby's desired cases like #1 should be ill-formed.
There is a wording problem in 14.6.1 temp.local paragraph 7. It says:
In the definition of a member of a class template that appears outside of the class template definition, the name of a member of this template hides the name of a template-parameter.
It should say "hides the name of a template-parameter of the class template (but not a template-parameter of the member, if the member is itself a template)" or words to that effect.
template <class T> class Foo {
public:
typedef int Bar;
Bar f();
};
template <class T> typename Foo<T>::Bar Foo<T>::f() { return 1;}
--------------------
In the class template definition, the declaration of the member function
is interpreted as:
int Foo<T>::f();In the definition of the member function that appears outside of the class template, the return type is not known until the member function is instantiated. Must the return type of the member function be known when this out-of-line definition is seen (in which case the definition above is ill-formed)? Or is it OK to wait until the member function is instantiated to see if the type of the return type matches the return type in the class template definition (in which case the definition above is well-formed)?
Suggested resolution: (John Spicer)
My opinion (which I think matches several posted on the reflector recently) is that the out-of-class definition must match the declaration in the template. In your example they do match, so it is well formed.
I've added some additional cases that illustrate cases that I think either are allowed or should be allowed, and some cases that I don't think are allowed.
template <class T> class A { typedef int X; };
template <class T> class Foo {
public:
typedef int Bar;
typedef typename A<T>::X X;
Bar f();
Bar g1();
int g2();
X h();
X i();
int j();
};
// Declarations that are okay
template <class T> typename Foo<T>::Bar Foo<T>::f()
{ return 1;}
template <class T> typename Foo<T>::Bar Foo<T>::g1()
{ return 1;}
template <class T> int Foo<T>::g2() { return 1;}
template <class T> typename Foo<T>::X Foo<T>::h() { return 1;}
// Declarations that are not okay
template <class T> int Foo<T>::i() { return 1;}
template <class T> typename Foo<T>::X Foo<T>::j() { return 1;}
In general, if you can match the declarations up using only information
from the template, then the declaration is valid.
Declarations like Foo::i and Foo::j are invalid because for a given instance of A<T>, A<T>::X may not actually be int if the class is specialized.
This is not a problem for Foo::g1 and Foo::g2 because for any instance of Foo<T> that is generated from the template you know that Bar will always be int. If an instance of Foo is specialized, the template member definitions are not used so it doesn't matter whether a specialization defines Bar as int or not.
Implementations differ in their treatment of the following code:
template <class T>
struct A {
typename T::X x;
};
template <class T>
struct B {
typedef T* X;
A<B> a;
};
int main ()
{
B<int> b;
}
Some implementations accept it. At least one rejects it because the instantiation of A<B<int> > requires that B<int> be complete, and it is not at the point at which A<B<int> > is being instantiated.
Erwin Unruh:
In my view the programm is ill-formed. My reasoning:
So each class needs the other to be complete.
The problem can be seen much easier if you replace the typedef with
typedef T (*X) [sizeof(B::a)];
Now you have a true recursion. The compiler cannot easily distinguish between a true recursion and a potential recursion.
John Spicer:
Using a class to form a qualified name does not require the class to be complete, it only requires that the named member already have been declared. In other words, this kind of usage is permitted:
class A {
typedef int B;
A::B ab;
};
In the same way, once B has been declared in A, it is also visible to any template that uses A through a template parameter.
The standard could be more clear in this regard, but there are two notes that make this point. Both 3.4.3.1 class.qual and 5.1 expr.prim paragraph 7 contain a note that says "a class member can be referred to using a qualified-id at any point in its potential scope (3.3.6 basic.scope.class)." A member's potential scope begins at its point of declaration.
In other words, a class has three states: incomplete, being completed, and complete. The standard permits a qualified name to be used once a name has been declared. The quotation of the notes about the potential scope was intended to support that.
So, in the original example, class A does not require the type of T to be complete, only that it have already declared a member X.
Bill Gibbons:
The template and non-template cases are different. In the non-template case the order in which the members become declared is clear. In the template case the members of the instantiation are conceptually all created at the same time. The standard does not say anything about trying to mimic the non-template case during the instantiation of a class template.
Mike Miller:
I think the relevant specification is 14.6.4.1 temp.point paragraph 3, dealing with the point of instantiation:
For a class template specialization... if the specialization is implicitly instantiated because it is referenced from within another template specialization, if the context from which the specialization is referenced depends on a template parameter, and if the specialization is not instantiated previous to the instantiation of the enclosing template, the point of instantiation is immediately before the point of instantiation of the enclosing template. Otherwise, the point of instantiation for such a specialization immediately precedes the namespace scope declaration or definition that refers to the specialization.
That means that the point of instantiation of A<B<int> > is before that of B<int>, not in the middle of B<int> after the declaration of B::X, and consequently a reference to B<int>::X from A<B<int> > is ill-formed.
To put it another way, I believe John's approach requires that there be an instantiation stack, with the results of partially-instantiated templates on the stack being available to instantiations above them. I don't think the Standard mandates that approach; as far as I can see, simply determining the implicit instantiations that need to be done, rewriting the definitions at their respective points of instantiation with parameters substituted (with appropriate "forward declarations" to allow for non-instantiating references), and compiling the result normally should be an acceptable implementation technique as well. That is, the implicit instantiation of the example (using, e.g., B_int to represent the generated name of the B<int> specialization) could be something like
struct B_int;
struct A_B_int {
B_int::X x; // error, incomplete type
};
struct B_int {
typedef int* X;
A_B_int a;
};
Notes from 10/01 meeting:
This was discussed at length. The consensus was that the template case should be treated the same as the non-template class case it terms of the order in which members get declared/defined and classes get completed.
Proposed resolution:
In 14.6.4.1 temp.point paragraph 3 change:
the point of instantiation is immediately before the point of instantiation of the enclosing template. Otherwise, the point of instantiation for such a specialization immediately precedes the namespace scope declaration or definition that refers to the specialization.
To:
the point of instantiation is the same as the point of instantiation of the enclosing template. Otherwise, the point of instantiation for such a specialization immediately precedes the nearest enclosing declaration. [Note: The point of instantiation is still at namespace scope but any declarations preceding the point of instantiation, even if not at namespace scope, are considered to have been seen.]
Add following paragraph 3:
If an implicitly instantiated class template specialization, class member specialization, or specialization of a class template references a class, class template specialization, class member specialization, or specialization of a class template containing a specialization reference that directly or indirectly caused the instantiation, the requirements of completeness and ordering of the class reference are applied in the context of the specialization reference.
and the following example
template <class T> struct A {
typename T::X x;
};
struct B {
typedef int X;
A<B> a;
};
template <class T> struct C {
typedef T* X;
A<C> a;
};
int main ()
{
C<int> c;
}
Notes from the October 2002 meeting:
This needs work. Moved back to drafting status.
Three points have been raised where the wording in 14.7.1 temp.inst may not be sufficiently clear.
A class template specialization is implicitly instantiated... if the completeness of the class type affects the semantics of the program...
It is not clear what it means for the "completeness... [to affect] the semantics." Consider the following example:
template<class T> struct A;
extern A<int> a;
void *foo() { return &a; }
template<class T> struct A
{
#ifdef OPTION
void *operator &() { return 0; }
#endif
};
The question here is whether it is necessary for template class A to declare an operator & for the semantics of the program to be affected. If it does not do so, the meaning of &a will be the same whether the class is complete or not and thus arguably the semantics of the program are not affected.
Presumably what was intended is whether the presence or absence of certain member declarations in the template class might be relevant in determining the meaning of the program. A clearer statement may be desirable.
If the overload resolution process can determine the correct function to call without instantiating a class template definition, it is unspecified whether that instantiation actually takes place.
The intent of this wording, as illustrated in the example in that paragraph, is to allow a "smart" implementation not to instantiate class templates if it can determine that such an instantiation will not affect the result of overload resolution, even though the algorithm described in clause 13 over requires that all the viable functions be enumerated, including functions that might be found as members of specializations.
Unfortunately, the looseness of the wording allowing this latitude for implementations makes it unclear what "the overload resolution process" is — is it the algorithm in 13 over or something else? — and what "the correct function" is.
If an implicit instantiation of a class template specialization is required and the template is declared but not defined, the program is ill-formed.
Here, it is not clear what conditions "require" an implicit instantiation. From the context, it would appear that the intent is to refer to the conditions in paragraph 4 that cause a specialization to be instantiated.
This interpretation, however, leads to different treatment of template and non-template incomplete classes. For example, by this interpretation,
class A;
template <class T> struct TA;
extern A a;
extern TA<int> ta;
void f(A*);
void f(TA<int>*);
int main()
{
f(&a); // well-formed; undefined if A
// has operator &() member
f(&ta); // ill-formed: cannot instantiate
}
A different approach would be to understand "required" in paragraph 6 to mean that a complete type is required in the expression. In this interpretation, if an incomplete type is acceptable in the context and the class template definition is not visible, the instantiation is not attempted and the program is well-formed.
The meaning of "required" in paragraph 6 must be clarified.
Notes on 10/01 meeting:
It was felt that item 1 is solved by addition of the word "might" in the resolution for issue 63; item 2 is not much of a problem; and item 3 could be solved by changing "required" to "required to be complete".
An expression used in an if statement is implicitly converted to type bool (6.4 stmt.select). According to the rules of template argument deduction for conversion functions given in 14.8.2.3 temp.deduct.conv, the following example is ill-formed:
struct X {
template<class T> operator const T&() const;
};
int main()
{
if( X() ) {}
}
Following the logic in 14.8.2.3 temp.deduct.conv, A is bool and P is const T (because cv-qualification is dropped from P before the reference is removed), and deduction fails.
It's not clear whether this is the intended outcome or not.
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The CWG observed that there is nothing special about either bool or the context in the example above; instead, it will be a problem wherever a copy occurs, because cv-qualification is always dropped in a copy operation. This appears to be a case where the conversion deduction rules are not properly symmetrical with the rules for arguments. The example should be accepted.
According to 15.1 except.throw paragraph 3,
The type of the throw-expression shall not be an incomplete type, or a pointer to an incomplete type other than (possibly cv-qualified) void.
This disallows cases like the following, because str has an incomplete type (an array of unknown size):
extern const char str[];
void f() {
throw str;
}
The array-to-pointer conversion is applied to the operand of throw, so there's no problem creating the exception object, which is the reason for the restriction on incomplete types. I believe this case should be permitted.
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The CWG agreed that the example should be permitted. Note that the reference to throw-expression in the cited text is incorrect; a throw-expression includes the throw keyword and is always of type void. This wording problem is addressed in the proposed resolution for issue 475.
Section 1.3.10 defns.signature, 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, 17.4.3.1.2 lib.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.
The standard defines “signature” in two places: 1.3.10 defns.signature and 14.5.5.1 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 1.3.10 defns.signature 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 1.3.10 defns.signature the definition states that “Function signatures do not include return type, because that does not participate in overload resolution,” while 14.5.5.1 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. 14.5.5.1 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.
Does the Standard require that an uninitialized auto variable have a stable (albeit indeterminate) value? That is, does the Standard require that the following function return true?
bool f() {
unsigned char i; // not initialized
unsigned char j = i;
unsigned char k = i;
return j == k; // true iff "i" is stable
}
3.9.1
basic.fundamental
paragraph 1
requires that uninitialized unsigned char variables have a
valid value, so the initializations of j and k are
well-formed and required not to trap. The question here is whether
the value of i is allowed to change between those
initializations.
Mike Miller: 1.9 intro.execution paragraph 10 says,
An instance of each object with automatic storage duration (3.7.2 basic.stc.auto ) is associated with each entry into its block. Such an object exists and retains its last-stored value during the execution of the block and while the block is suspended...I think that the most reasonable way to read this is that the only thing that is allowed to change the value of an automatic (non-volatile?) value is a "store" operation in the abstract machine. There are no "store" operations to i between the initializations of j and k, so it must retain its original (indeterminate but valid) value, and the result of the program is well-defined.
The quibble, of course, is whether the wording "last-stored value" should be applied to a "never-stored" value. I think so, but others might differ.
Tom Plum: 7.1.5.1 dcl.type.cv paragraph 8 says,
[Note: volatile is a hint to the implementation to avoid aggressive optimization involving the object because the value of the object might be changed by means undetectable by an implementation. See 1.9 intro.execution for detailed semantics. In general, the semantics of volatile are intended to be the same in C++ as they are in C. ]>From this I would infer that non-volatile means "shall not be changed by means undetectable by an implementation"; that the compiler is entitled to safely cache accesses to non-volatile objects if it can prove that no "detectable" means can modify them; and that therefore i shall maintain the same value during the example above.
Nathan Myers: This also has practical code-generation consequences. If the uninitialized auto variable lives in a register, and its value is really unspecified, then until it is initialized that register can be used as a temporary. Each time it's "looked at" the variable has the value that last washed up in that register. After it's initialized it's "live" and cannot be used as a temporary any more, and your register pressure goes up a notch. Fixing the uninit'd value would make it "live" the first time it is (or might be) looked at, instead.
Mike Ball: I agree with this. I also believe that it was certainly never my intent that an uninitialized variable be stable, and I would have strongly argued against such a provision. Nathan has well stated the case. And I am quite certain that it would be disastrous for optimizers. To ensure it, the frontend would have to generate an initializer, because optimizers track not only the lifetimes of variables, but the lifetimes of values assigned to those variables. This would put C++ at a significant performance disadvantage compared to other languages. Not even Java went this route. Guaranteeing defined behavior for a very special case of a generally undefined operation seems unnecessary.
2.4 lex.pptoken paragraph 2 specifies that there are 5 categories of tokens in phases 3 to 6. With 2.12 lex.operators paragraph 1, it is unclear whether new is an identifier or a preprocessing-op-or-punc; likewise for delete. This is relevant to answer the question whether
#define delete foo
is a well-formed control-line, since that requires an identifier after the define token.
2.13.4 lex.string paragraph 5 reads
Escape sequences and universal-character-names in string literals have the same meaning as in character literals, except that the single quote ' is representable either by itself or by the escape sequence \', and the double quote " shall be preceded by a \. In a narrow string literal, a universal-character-name may map to more than one char element due to multibyte encoding.
The first sentence refers us to 2.13.2 lex.ccon, where we read in the first paragraph that "An ordinary character literal that contains a single c-char has type char [...]." Since the grammar shows that a universal-character-name is a c-char, something like '\u1234' must have type char (and thus be a single char element); in paragraph 5, we read that "A universal-character-name is translated to the encoding, in the execution character set, of the character named. If there is no such encoding, the universal-character-name is translated to an implemenation-defined encoding."
This is in obvious contradiction with the second sentence. In addition, I'm not really clear what is supposed to happen in the case where the execution (narrow-)character set is UTF-8. Consider the character \u0153 (the oe in the French word oeuvre). Should '\u0153' be a char, with an "error" value, say '?' (in conformance with the requirement that it be a single char), or an int, with the two char values 0xC5, 0x93, in an implementation defined order (in conformance with the requirement that a character representable in the execution character set be represented). Supposing the former, should "\u0153" be the equivalent of "?" (in conformance with the first sentence), or "\xC5\x93" (in conformance with the second).
Notes from October 2003 meeting:
We decided we should forward this to the C committee and let them resolve it. Sent via e-mail to John Benito on November 14, 2003.
Reply from John Benito:
I talked this over with the C project editor, we believe this was handled by the C committee before publication of the current standard.
WG14 decided there needed to be a more restrictive rule for one-to-one mappings: rather than saying "a single c-char" as C++ does, the C standard says "a single character that maps to a single-byte execution character"; WG14 fully expect some (if not many or even most) UCNs to map to multiple characters.
Because of the fundamental differences between C and C++ character types, I am not sure the C committee is qualified to answer this satisfactorily for WG21. WG14 is willing to review any decision reached for compatibility.
I hope this helps.
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.
Clause 3 basic paragraph 4 says:
A name is a use of an identifier (2.10 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 (11.4 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+.
Sections 3.3.2 basic.scope.local to 3.3.6 basic.scope.class define and summarize different kinds of scopes in a C++ program. However it is missing a description for the scope of template parameters. I believe a section is needed there — even though some information may be found in clause 14.
The current description of unqualified name lookup in 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual paragraph 8 does not correctly handle complex cases of nesting. The Standard currently reads,
A name used in the definition of a function that is a member function (9.3) of a class X shall be declared in one of the following ways:In particular, this formulation does not handle the following example:
- before its use in the block in which it is used or in an enclosing block (6.3), or
- shall be a member of class X or be a member of a base class of X (10.2), or
- if X is a nested class of class Y (9.7), shall be a member of Y, or shall be a member of a base class of Y (this lookup applies in turn to Y's enclosing classes, starting with the innermost enclosing class), or
- if X is a local class (9.8) or is a nested class of a local class, before the definition of class X in a block enclosing the definition of class X, or
- if X is a member of namespace N, or is a nested class of a class that is a member of N, or is a local class or nested class within a local class of a function that is a member of N, before the member function definition, in namespace N or in one of N's enclosing namespaces.
struct outer {
static int i;
struct inner {
void f() {
struct local {
void g() {
i = 5;
}
};
}
};
};
Here the reference to i is from a member function of a local
class of a member function of a nested class. Nothing in the rules
allows outer::i to be found, although intuitively it should
be found.
A more comprehensive formulation is needed that allows traversal of any combination of blocks, local classes, and nested classes. Similarly, the final bullet needs to be augmented so that a function need not be a (direct) member of a namespace to allow searching that namespace when the reference is from a member function of a class local to that function. That is, the current rules do not allow the following example:
int j; // global namespace
struct S {
void f() {
struct local2 {
void g() {
j = 5;
}
};
}
};
The description of name lookup in the parameter-declaration-clause of member functions in 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual paragraphs 7-8 is flawed in at least two regards.
First, both paragraphs 7 and 8 apply to the parameter-declaration-clause of a member function definition and give different rules for the lookup. Paragraph 7 applies to names "used in the definition of a class X outside of a member function body...," which includes the parameter-declaration-clause of a member function definition, while paragraph 8 applies to names following the function's declarator-id (see the proposed resolution of issue 41), including the parameter-declaration-clause.
Second, paragraph 8 appears to apply to the type names used in the parameter-declaration-clause of a member function defined inside the class definition. That is, it appears to allow the following code, which was not the intent of the Committee:
struct S {
void f(I i) { }
typedef int I;
};
There seems to be some confusion in the Standard regarding the relationship between 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual (Unqualified name lookup) and 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep (Argument-dependent lookup). For example, 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual paragraph 3 says,
The lookup for an unqualified name used as the postfix-expression of a function call is described in 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep.
In other words, nothing in 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual applies to function names; the entire lookup is described in 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep.
3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep does not appear to share this view of its responsibility. The closest it comes is in 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep paragraph 2a:
...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.
Presumably, "ordinary unqualified lookup" is a reference to the processing described in 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual, but, as noted above, 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual explicitly precludes applying that processing to function names. The details of "ordinary unqualified lookup" of function names are not described anywhere.
The other clauses that reference 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep, clauses 13 over and 14 temp, are split over the question of the relationship between 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual and 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep. 13.3.1.1.1 over.call.func paragraph 3, for instance, says
The name is looked up in the context of the function call following the normal rules for name lookup in function calls (3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep).
I.e., this reference assumes that 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep is self-contained. The same is true of 13.3.1.2 over.match.oper paragraph 3, second bullet:
The set of non-member candidates is the result of the unqualified lookup of operator@ in the context of the expression according to the usual rules for name lookup in unqualified function calls (3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep), except that all member functions are ignored.
On the other hand, however, 14.6.4.2 temp.dep.candidate paragraph 1 explicitly assumes that 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual and 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep are both involved in function name lookup and do different things:
For a function call that depends on a template parameter, if the function name is an unqualified-id but not a template-id, the candidate functions are found using the usual lookup rules (3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual, 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep) except that:
- For the part of the lookup using unqualified name lookup (3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual), only function declarations with external linkage from the template definition context are found.
- For the part of the lookup using associated namespaces (3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep), only function declarations with external linkage found in either the template definition context or the template instantiation context are found.
Suggested resolution:
Change 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual paragraph 1 from
...name lookup ends as soon as a declaration is found for the name.
to
...name lookup ends with the first scope containing one or more declarations of the name.
Change the first sentence of 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual paragraph 3 from
The lookup for an unqualified name used as the postfix-expression of a function call is described in 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep.
to
An unqualified name used as the postfix-expression of a function call is looked up as described below. In addition, argument-dependent lookup (3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep) is performed on this name to complete the resulting set of declarations.
The last bullet of the second paragraph of section 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep says that:
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.
The first problem with this wording is that it is misleading, since one cannot get such a function argument whose type would be a template-id. The bullet should be speaking about template specializations instead.
The second problem is owing to the use of the word "defined" in the phrases "are the namespace in which the template is defined", "in which any template template arguments are defined", and "as template template arguments are defined". The bullet should use the word "declared" instead, since scenarios like the one below are possible:
namespace A {
template<class T>
struct test {
template<class U>
struct mem_templ { };
};
// declaration in namespace 'A'
template<> template<>
struct test<int>::mem_templ<int>;
void foo(test<int>::mem_templ<int>&)
{ }
}
// definition in the global namespace
template<> template<>
struct A::test<int>::mem_templ<int> {
};
int main()
{
A::test<int>::mem_templ<int> inst;
// According to the current definition of 3.4.2
// foo is not found.
foo(inst);
}
In addition, the bullet doesn't make it clear whether a T which is a class template specialization must also be treated as a class type, i.e. if the contents of the second bullet of the second paragraph of section 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep.
must apply to it or not. The same stands for a T which is a function template specialization. This detail can make a difference in an example such as the one below:
- 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. [This wording is as updated by core issue 90.]
template<class T>
struct slist_iterator {
friend bool operator==(const slist_iterator& x, const slist_iterator& y)
{ return true; }
};
template<class T>
struct slist {
typedef slist_iterator<T> iterator;
iterator begin()
{ return iterator(); }
iterator end()
{ return iterator(); }
};
int main()
{
slist<int> my_list;
slist<int>::iterator mi1 = my_list.begin(), mi2 = my_list.end();
// Must the the friend function declaration
// bool operator==(const slist_iterator<int>&, const slist_iterator<int>&);
// be found through argument dependent lookup? I.e. is the specialization
// 'slist<int>' the associated class of the arguments 'mi1' and 'mi2'. If we
// apply only the contents of the last bullet of 3.4.2/2, then the type
// 'slist_iterator<int>' has no associated classes and the friend declaration
// is not found.
mi1 == mi2;
}
Suggested resolution:
Replace the last bullet of the second paragraph of section 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep
with
- 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.
- If T is a class template specialization, its associated namespaces and classes are those associated with T when T is regarded as a class type; 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 the primary templates making template template arguments are declared; and the classes in which any primary member templates used as template template arguments are declared.
- If T is a function template specialization, its associated namespaces and classes are those associated with T when T is regarded as a function type; 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 the primary templates making template template arguments are declared; and the classes in which any primary member templates used as template template arguments are declared.
Replace the second bullet of the second paragraph of section 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep
with
- 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.
- 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 declared [Note: in case of any of the associated classes being a class template specialization, its associated namespace is acually the namespace containing the declaration of the primary class template of the class template specialization].
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.
Is this case valid? G++ compiles it.
namespace X {
namespace Y {
struct X {
void f()
{
using X::Y;
namespace Z = X::Y;
}
};
}
}
The relevant citation from the standard is 3.4.6 basic.lookup.udir: "When looking up a namespace-name in a using-directive or namespace-alias-definition, only namespace names are considered." This statement could reasonably be interpreted to apply only to the last element of a qualified name, and that's the way EDG and Microsoft seem to interpret it.
However, since a class can't contain a namespace, it seems to me that this interpretation is, shall we say, sub optimal. If the X qualifiers in the above example are interpreted as referring to the struct X, an error of some sort is inevitable, since there can be no namespace for the qualified name to refer to. G++ apparently interprets 3.4.6 basic.lookup.udir as applying to nested-name-specifiers in those contexts as well, which makes a valid interpretation of the test possible.
I'm thinking it might be worth tweaking the words in 3.4.6 basic.lookup.udir to basically mandate the more useful interpretation. Of course a person could argue that the difference would matter only to a perverse program. On the other hand, namespaces were invented specifically to enable the building of programs that would otherwise be considered perverse. Where name clashes are concerned, one man's perverse is another man's real world.
It is unclear to what extent entities without names match across translation units. For example,
struct S {
int :2;
enum { a, b, c } x;
static class {} *p;
};
If this declaration appears in multiple translation units, are all these members "the same" in each declaration?
A similar question can be asked about non-member declarations:
// Translation unit 1:
extern enum { d, e, f } y;
// Translation unit 2:
extern enum { d, e, f } y;
// Translation unit 3:
enum { d, e, f } y;
Is this valid C++? Is it valid C?
James Kanze: S::p cannot be defined, because to do so requires a type specifier and the type cannot be named. ::y is valid C because C only requires compatible, not identical, types. In C++, it appears that there is a new type in each declaration, so it would not be valid. This differs from S::x because the unnamed type is part of a named type — but I don't know where or if the Standard says that.
John Max Skaller: It's not valid C++, because the type is a synthesised, unique name for the enumeration type which differs across translation units, as if:
extern enum _synth1 { d,e,f} y;
..
extern enum _synth2 { d,e,f} y;
had been written.
However, within a class, the ODR implies the types are the same:
class X { enum { d } y; };
in two translation units ensures that the type of member y is the same: the two X's obey the ODR and so denote the same class, and it follows that there's only one member y and one type that it has.
(See also issues 132 and 216.)
The standard says that an unnamed class or enum definition can be given a "name for linkage purposes" through a typedef. E.g.,
typedef enum {} E;
extern E *p;
can appear in multiple translation units.
How about the following combination?
// Translation unit 1:
struct S;
extern S *q;
// Translation unit 2:
typedef struct {} S;
extern S *q;
Is this valid C++?
Also, if the answer is "yes", consider the following slight variant:
// Translation unit 1:
struct S {}; // <<-- class has definition
extern S *q;
// Translation unit 2:
typedef struct {} S;
extern S *q;
Is this a violation of the ODR because two definitions of type S consist of differing token sequences?
The following declarations are allowed within a translation unit:
struct S;
enum { S };
However, 3.5 basic.link paragraph 9 seems to say these two declarations cannot appear in two different translation units. That also would mean that the inclusion of a header containing the above in two different translation units is not valid C++.
I suspect this is an oversight and that users should be allowed to have the declarations above appear in different translation units. (It is a fairly common thing to do, I think.)
Mike Miller: I think you meant "enum E { S };" -- enumerators only have external linkage if the enumeration does (3.5 basic.link paragraph 4), and 3.5 basic.link paragraph 9 only applies to entities with external linkage.
I don't remember why enumerators were given linkage; I don't think it's necessary for mangling non-type template arguments. In any event, I can't think why cross-TU name collisions between enumerators and other entities would cause a problem, so I guess a change here would be okay. I can think of three changes that would have that effect:
Daveed Vandevoorde: I don't think any of these are sufficient in the sense that the problem isn't limited to enumerators. E.g.:
struct X; extern void X();shouldn't create cross-TU collisions either.
Mike Miller: So you're saying that cross-TU collisions should only be prohibited if both names denote entities of the same kind (both functions, both objects, both types, etc.), or if they are both references (regardless of what they refer to, presumably)?
Daveed Vandevoorde: Not exactly. Instead, I'm saying that if two entities (with external linkage) can coexist when they're both declared in the same translation unit (TU), then they should also be allowed to coexist when they're declared in two different translation units.
For example:
int i; void i(); // ErrorThis is an error within a TU, so I don't see a reason to make it valid across TUs.
However, "tag names" (class/struct/union/enum) can sometimes coexist with identically named entities (variables, functions & enumerators, but not namespaces, templates or type names).
The resolution of issue 389 makes code like
static struct {
int i;
int j;
} X;
ill-formed. This breaks a lot of code for no apparent reason, since the name X is not known outside the translation unit in which it appears; there is therefore no danger of collision and no need to mangle its name.
There has also been recent discussion on the email reflectors as to whether the restrictions preventing use of types without linkage as template arguments is needed or not, with the suggestion that a mechanism like that used to give members of the unnamed namespace unique names could be used for unnamed and local types. See also issue 488, which would become moot if types without linkage could be used as template parameters.
Notes from the October, 2005 meeting:
The Evolution Working Group is discussing changes that would address this issue. CWG will defer consideration until the outcome of the EWG discussions is clear.
Is a compiler allowed to interleave constructor calls when performing dynamic initialization of nonlocal objects? What I mean by interleaving is: beginning to execute a particular constructor, then going off and doing something else, then going back to the original constructor. I can't find anything explicit about this in clause 3.6.2 basic.start.init.
I'll present a few different examples, some of which get a bit wild. But a lot of what this comes down to is exactly what the standard means when it talks about the order of initialization. If it says that some object x must be initialized before a particular event takes place, does that mean that x's constructor must be entered before that event, or does it mean that it must be exited before that event? If object x must be initialized before object y, does that mean that x's constructor must exit before y's constructor is entered?
(The answer to that question might just be common sense, but I couldn't find an answer in clause 3.6.2 basic.start.init. Actually, when I read 3.6.2 basic.start.init carefully, I find there are a lot of things I took for granted that aren't there.)
OK, so a few specific scenerios.
<runtime gunk>
<Enter A's constructor>
<Enter f>
<runtime gunk>
<Enter B's constructor>
<Enter f>
<Leave f>
<Leave B's constructor>
<Leave f>
<Leave A's constructor>
The implication of a 'yes' answer for users is that any function
called by a constructor, directly or indirectly, must be reentrant.At this point, you might be thinking we could avoid all of this nonsense by removing compilers' freedom to defer initialization until after the beginning of main(). I'd resist that, for two reasons. First, it would be a huge change to make after the standard has been out. Second, that freedom is necessary if we want to have support for dynamic libraries. I realize we don't yet say anything about dynamic libraries, but I'd hate to make decisions that would make such support even harder.
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'.]
There are several problems with 3.7 basic.stc:
3.7 basic.stc paragraph 2 says that "Static and automatic storage durations are associated with objects introduced by declarations (3.1 basic.def) and implicitly created by the implementation (12.2 class.temporary)."
In fact, objects "implicitly created by the implementation" are the temporaries described in (12.2 class.temporary), and have neither static nor automatic storage duration, but a totally different duration, described in 12.2 class.temporary.
3.7 basic.stc uses the expression "local object" in several places, without ever defining it. Presumably, what is meant is "an object declared at block scope", but this should be said explicitly.
In a recent discussion in comp.lang.c++.moderated, on poster interpreted "local objects" as including temporaries. This would require them to live until the end of the block in which they are created, which contradicts 12.2 class.temporary. If temporaries are covered by this section, and the statement in 3.7 basic.stc seems to suggest, and they aren't local objects, then they must have static storage duration, which isn't right either.
I propose adding a fourth storage duration to the list after 3.7 basic.stc paragraph 1:
And rewriting the second paragraph of this section as follows:
Temporary storage duration is associated with objects implicitly created by the implementation, and is described in 12.2 class.temporary. Static and automatic storage durations are associated with objects defined by declarations; in the following, an object defined by a declaration with block scope is a local object. The dynamic storage duration is associated with objects created by the operator new.
Steve Adamczyk: There may well be an issue here, but one should bear in mind the difference between storage duration and object lifetime. As far as I can see, there is no particular problem with temporaries having automatic or static storage duration, as appropriate. The point of 12.2 class.temporary is that they have an unusual object lifetime.
Notes from Ocrober 2002 meeting:
It might be desirable to shorten the storage duration of temporaries to allow reuse of them. The as-if rule allows some reuse, but such reuse requires analysis, including noting whether the addresses of such temporaries have been taken.
3.7.3.2 basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation paragraph 4 mentions that the effect of using an invalid pointer value is undefined. However, the standard never says what it means to 'use' a value.
There are a number of possible interpretations, but it appears that each of them leads to undesired conclusions:
int *x = new int(0); delete x; x = 0;into undefined behaviour. As this is a common idiom, this is clearly undesirable.
int *x = new int(0); delete x; x->~int();into undefined behaviour; according to 5.2.4 expr.pseudo, the variable x is 'evaluated' as part of evaluating the pseudo destructor call. This, in turn, would mean that all containers (23 lib.containers) of pointers show undefined behaviour, e.g. 23.2.2.3 lib.list.modifiers requires to invoke the destructor as part of the clear() method of the container.
If any other meaning was intended for 'using an expression', that meaning should be stated explicitly.
When an object is deleted, 3.7.3.2 basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation says that the deallocation “[renders] invalid all pointers referring to any part of the deallocated storage.” According to 3.9.2 basic.compound paragraph 3, a pointer whose address is one past the end of an array is considered to point to an unrelated object that happens to reside at that address. Does this need to be clarified to specify that the one-past-the-end pointer of an array is not invalidated by deleting the following object? (See also 5.3.5 expr.delete paragraph 4, which also mentions that the system deallocation function renders a pointer invalid.)
Consider
extern "C" int printf (const char *,...);
struct Base { Base();};
struct Derived: virtual public Base {
Derived() {;}
};
Derived d;
extern Derived& obj = d;
int i;
Base::Base() {
if ((Base *) &obj) i = 4;
printf ("i=%d\n", i);
}
int main() { return 0; }
12.7 class.cdtor paragraph 2 makes this valid, but 3.8 basic.life paragraph 5 implies that it isn't valid.
Steve Adamczyk: A second issue:
extern "C" int printf(const char *,...);
struct A { virtual ~A(); int x; };
struct B : public virtual A { };
struct C : public B { C(int); };
struct D : public C { D(); };
int main() { D t; printf("passed\n");return 0; }
A::~A() {}
C::C(int) {}
D::D() : C(this->x) {}
Core issue 52 almost, but not quite, says that in evaluating "this->x" you do a cast to the virtual base class A, which would be an error according to 12.7 class.cdtor paragraph 2 because the base class B constructor hasn't started yet. 5.2.5 expr.ref should be clarified to say that the cast does need to get done.
James Kanze submitted the same issue via comp.std.c++ on 11 July 2003:
Richard Smith: Nonsense. You can use "this" perfectly happily in a constructor, just be careful that (a) you're not using any members that are not fully initialised, and (b) if you're calling virtual functions you know exactly what you're doing.
In practice, and I think in intent, you are right. However, the standard makes some pretty stringent restrictions in 3.8 basic.life. To start with, it says (in paragraph 1):
The lifetime of an object is a runtime property of the object. The lifetime of an object of type T begins when:(Emphasis added.) Then when we get down to paragraph 5, it says:The lifetime of an object of type T ends 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, the constructor calls has COMPLETED.
- if T is a class type with a non-trivial destructor, the destructor call STARTS, or
- the storage which the object occupies is reused or released.
Before the lifetime of an object has started but after the storage which the object will occupy has been allocated [which sounds to me like it would include in the constructor, given the text above] or, after the lifetime of an object has ended and before the storage which the object occupied is reused or released, any pointer that refers to the storage location where the object will be or was located may be used but only in limited ways. [...] If the object will be or was of a non-POD class type, the program has undefined behavior if:
[...]
- the pointer is implicitly converted to a pointer to a base class type, or [...]
I can't find any exceptions for the this pointer.
Note that calling a non-static function in the base class, or even constructing the base class in initializer list, involves an implicit conversion of this to a pointer to the base class. Thus undefined behavior. I'm sure that this wasn't the intent, but it would seem to be what this paragraph is saying.
In 3.9 basic.types paragraph 10, the standard makes it quite clear that volatile qualified types are PODs:
Arithmetic types (3.9.1 basic.fundamental), enumeration types, pointer types, and pointer to member types (3.9.2 basic.compound), and cv-qualified versions of these types (3.9.3 basic.type.qualifier) are collectively called scalar types. Scalar types, POD-struct types, POD-union types (clause 9 class), arrays of such types and cv-qualified versions of these types (3.9.3 basic.type.qualifier) are collectively called POD types.
However in 3.9 basic.types paragraph 3, the standard makes it clear that PODs can be copied “as if” they were a collection of bytes by memcpy:
For any POD type T, if two pointers to T point to distinct T objects obj1 and obj2, where neither obj1 nor obj2 is a base-class subobject, if the value of obj1 is copied into obj2, using the std::memcpy library function, obj2 shall subsequently hold the same value as obj1.
The problem with this is that a volatile qualified type may need to be copied in a specific way (by copying using only atomic operations on multithreaded platforms, for example) in order to avoid the “memory tearing” that may occur with a byte-by-byte copy.
I realise that the standard says very little about volatile qualified types, and nothing at all (yet) about multithreaded platforms, but nonetheless this is a real issue, for the following reason:
The forthcoming TR1 will define a series of traits that provide information about the properties of a type, including whether a type is a POD and/or has trivial construct/copy/assign operations. Libraries can use this information to optimise their code as appropriate, for example an array of type T might be copied with a memcpy rather than an element-by-element copy if T is a POD. This was one of the main motivations behind the type traits chapter of the TR1. However it's not clear how volatile types (or POD's which have a volatile type as a member) should be handled in these cases.
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
It is not clear whether the volatile qualifier actually guarantees atomicity in this way. Also, the work on the memory model for multithreading being done by the Evolution Working Group seems at this point likely to specify additional semantics for volatile data, and that work would need to be considered before resolving this issue.
3.9.1 basic.fundamental does not impose a requirement on the floating point types that there be an exact representation of the value zero. This omission is significant in 4.12 conv.bool paragraph 1, in which any non-zero value converts to the bool value true.
Suggested resolution: require that all floating point types have an exact representation of the value zero.
3.9.1 basic.fundamental paragraph 2 says that
There are four signed integer types: "signed char", "short int", "int", and "long int."
This would indicate that const int is not a signed integer type.
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.)
4.1 conv.lval paragraph 1 says,
If the object to which the lvalue refers is not an object of type T and is not an object of a type derived from T, or if the object is uninitialized, a program that necessitates this conversion has undefined behavior.
I think there are at least three related issues around this specification:
Presumably assigning a valid value to an uninitialized object allows it to participate in the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion without undefined behavior (otherwise the number of programs with defined behavior would be vanishingly small :-). However, the wording here just says "uninitialized" and doesn't mention assignment.
There's no exception made for unsigned char types. The wording in 3.9.1 basic.fundamental was carefully crafted to allow use of unsigned char to access uninitialized data so that memcpy and such could be written in C++ without undefined behavior, but this statement undermines that intent.
It's possible to get an uninitialized rvalue without invoking the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion. For instance:
struct A {
int i;
A() { } // no init of A::i
};
int j = A().i; // uninitialized rvalue
There doesn't appear to be anything in the current IS wording that says that this is undefined behavior. My guess is that we thought that in placing the restriction on use of uninitialized objects in the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion we were catching all possible cases, but we missed this one.
In light of the above, I think the discussion of uninitialized objects ought to be removed from 4.1 conv.lval paragraph 1. Instead, something like the following ought to be added to 3.9 basic.types paragraph 4 (which is where the concept of "value" is introduced):
Any use of an indeterminate value (5.3.4 expr.new, 8.5 dcl.init, 12.6.2 class.base.init) of any type other than char or unsigned char results in undefined behavior.
John Max Skaller:
A().i had better be an lvalue; the rules are wrong. Accessing a member of a structure requires it be converted to an lvalue, the above calculation is 'as if':
struct A {
int i;
A *get() { return this; }
};
int j = (*A().get()).i;
and you can see the bracketed expression is an lvalue.
A consequence is:
int &j= A().i; // OK, even if the temporary evaporates
j now refers to a 'destroyed' value. Any use of j is an error. But the binding at the time is valid.
Section 4.4 conv.qual covers the case of multi-level pointers, but does not appear to cover the case of pointers to arrays of pointers. The effect is that arrays are treated differently from simple scalar values.
Consider for example the following code: (from the thread "Pointer to array conversion question" begun in comp.lang.c++.moderated)
int main()
{
double *array2D[2][3];
double * (*array2DPtr1)[3] = array2D; // Legal
double * const (*array2DPtr2)[3] = array2DPtr1; // Legal
double const * const (*array2DPtr3)[3] = array2DPtr2; // Illegal
}
and compare this code with:-
int main()
{
double *array[2];
double * *ppd1 = array; // legal
double * const *ppd2 = ppd1; // legal
double const * const *ppd3 = ppd2; // certainly legal (4.4/4)
}
The problem appears to be that the pointed to types in example 1 are unrelated since nothing in the relevant section of the standard covers it - 4.4 conv.qual does not mention conversions of the form "cv array of N pointer to T" into "cv array of N pointer to cv T"
It appears that reinterpret_cast is the only way to perform the conversion.
Suggested resolution:
Artem Livshits proposed a resolution :-
"I suppose if the definition of "similar" pointer types in 4.4 conv.qual paragraph 4 was rewritten like this:
it would address the problem.T1 is cv1,0 P0 cv1,1 P1 ... cv1,n-1 Pn-1 cv1,n T
and
T2 is cv1,0 P0 cv1,1 P1 ... cv1,n-1 Pn-1 cv1,n T
where Pi is either a "pointer to" or a "pointer to an array of Ni"; besides P0 may be also a "reference to" or a "reference to an array of N0" (in the case of P0 of T2 being a reference, P0 of T1 may be nothing).
In fact I guess Pi in this notation may be also a "pointer to member", so 4.4 conv.qual/{4,5,6,7} would be nicely wrapped in one paragraph."
It is not clear what constraints are placed on a floating point implementation by the wording of the Standard. For instance, is an implementation permitted to generate a "fused multiply-add" instruction if the result would be different from what would be obtained by performing the operations separately? To what extent does the "as-if" rule allow the kinds of optimizations (e.g., loop unrolling) performed by FORTRAN compilers?
Lisa Lippincott mentioned this case to me:
A[0] = 0; A[A[0]] = 1;
This seems to use the old value of A[0] other than to calculate the new value, which is said to be undefined, but it also seems reasonable, since the old value is used in order to select the object to modify, so there's no ordering ambiguity.
Steve Adamczyk: the ordering rule referred to is in 5 expr paragraph 4.
Notes from the March 2004 meeting:
Clark Nelson mentions that the C committee may have done something on this.
There are at least a couple of problems in the description of the various id-expressions in 5.1 expr.prim:
Paragraph 4 embodies an incorrect assumption about the syntax of qualified-ids:
The operator :: followed by an identifier, a qualified-id, or an operator-function-id is a primary-expression.
The problem here is that the :: is actually part of the syntax of qualified-id; consequently, “:: followed by... a qualified-id” could be something like “:: ::i,” which is ill-formed. Presumably this should say something like, “A qualified-id with no nested-name-specifier is a primary-expression.”
More importantly, some kinds of id-expressions are not described by 5.1 expr.prim. The structure of this section is that the result, type, and lvalue-ness are specified for each of the cases it covers:
paragraph 4 deals with qualified-ids that have no nested-name-specifier
paragraph 7 deals with bare identifiers and with qualified-ids containing a nested-name-specifier that names a class
paragraph 8 deals with qualified-ids containing a nested-name-specifier that names a namespace
This treatment leaves unspecified all the non-identifier unqualified-ids (operator-function-id, conversion-function-id, and template-id), as well as (perhaps) “:: template-id” (it's not clear whether the “:: followed by a qualified-id” case is supposed to apply to template-ids or not). Note also that the proposed resolution of issue 301 slightly exacerbates this problem by removing the form of operator-function-id that contains a tmeplate-argument-list; as a result, references like “::operator+<X>” are no longer covered in 5.1 expr.prim.
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.Here it is quite specific that you get the polymorphic call only if you use the unqualified syntax. But, the address of a member function is "always" taken using the qualified syntax, which by inference would indicate that call with a PMF is static and not polymorphic! Not what was intended.
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.indicate that the opposite may have been intended, by stating that it is the dynamic type and not the static type that matters. Also, 5.5 expr.mptr.oper paragraph 6:
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. ]
which also implies that it is the object pointed to that determines both the
validity of the expression (the static type of 'ptr_to_obj'
may not have a
compatible function) and the implicit (polymorphic) meaning. Note too,
that this is stated in the non-normative example text.
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.nonstatic , 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.
The original proposed resolution for issue 160 included changing extended_type_info (5.2.8 expr.typeid paragraph 1, footnote 61) to std::extended_type_info. There was no consensus on whether this name ought to be part of namespace std or in a vendor-specific namespace, so the question was moved into a separate issue.
5.2.8 expr.typeid paragraph 4 says,
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. If the type of the type-id is a class type or a reference to a class type, the class shall be completely-defined.
I'm wondering whether this is not overly restrictive. I can't think of a reason to require that T be completely-defined in typeid(T) when T is a class type. In fact, several popular compilers enforce that restriction for typeid(T), but not for typeid(T&). Can anyone explain this?
Nathan Sidwell: I think this restriction is so that whenever the compiler has to emit a typeid object of a class type, it knows what the base classes are, and can therefore emit an array of pointers-to-base-class typeids. Such a tree is necessary to implement dynamic_cast and exception catching (in a commonly implemented and obvious manner). If the class could be incomplete, the compiler might have to emit a typeid for incomplete Foo in one object file and a typeid for complete Foo in another object file. The compilation system will then have to make sure that (a) those compare equal and (b) the complete Foo gets priority, if that is applicable.
Unfortunately, there is a problem with exceptions that means there still can be a need to emit typeids for incomplete class. Namely one can throw a pointer-to-pointer-to-incomplete. To implement the matching of pointer-to-derived being caught by pointer-to-base, it is necessary for the typeid of a pointer type to contain a pointer to the typeid of the pointed-to type. In order to do the qualification matching on a multi-level pointer type, one has a chain of pointer typeids that can terminate in the typeid of an incomplete type. You cannot simply NULL-terminate the chain, because one must distinguish between different incomplete types.
Dave Abrahams: So if implementations are still required to be able to do it, for all practical purposes, why aren't we letting the user have the benefits?
Split off from issue 315.
Incidentally, another thing that ought to be cleaned up is the inconsistent use of "indirection" and "dereference". We should pick one.
5.3.1 expr.unary.op paragraph 2 indicates that the type of an address-of-member expression reflects the class in which the member was declared rather than the class identified in the nested-name-specifier of the qualified-id. This treatment is unintuitive and can lead to strange code and unexpected results. For instance, in
struct B { int i; };
struct D1: B { };
struct D2: B { };
int (D1::* pmD1) = &D2::i; // NOT an error
More seriously, template argument deduction can give surprising
results:
struct A {
int i;
virtual void f() = 0;
};
struct B : A {
int j;
B() : j(5) {}
virtual void f();
};
struct C : B {
C() { j = 10; }
};
template <class T>
int DefaultValue( int (T::*m) ) {
return T().*m;
}
... DefaultValue( &B::i ) // Error: A is abstract
... DefaultValue( &C::j ) // returns 5, not 10.
Suggested resolution: 5.3.1 expr.unary.op should be changed to read,
If the member is a nonstatic member (perhaps by inheritance) of the class nominated by the nested-name-specifier of the qualified-id having type T, the type of the result is "pointer to member of class nested-name-specifier of type T."and the comment in the example should be changed to read,
// has type int B::*
Notes from 04/00 meeting:
The rationale for the current treatment is to permit the widest possible use to be made of a given address-of-member expression. Since a pointer-to-base-member can be implicitly converted to a pointer-to-derived-member, making the type of the expression a pointer-to-base-member allows the result to initialize or be assigned to either a pointer-to-base-member or a pointer-to-derived-member. Accepting this proposal would allow only the latter use.
Additional notes:
Another problematic example has been mentioned:
class Base {
public:
int func() const;
};
class Derived : public Base {
};
template<class T>
class Templ {
public:
template<class S>
Templ(S (T::*ptmf)() const);
};
void foo()
{
Templ<Derived> x(&Derived::func); // ill-formed
}
In this example, even though the conversion of &Derived::func to int (Derived::*)() const is permitted, the initialization of x cannot be done because template argument deduction for the constructor fails.
If the suggested resolution were adopted, the amount of code broken by the change might be reduced by adding an implicit conversion from pointer-to-derived-member to pointer-to-base-member for appropriate address-of-member expressions (not for arbitrary pointers to members, of course).
(See also issue 247.)
Requirements for the alignment of pointers returned by new-expressions are given in 5.3.4 expr.new paragraph 10:
For arrays of char and unsigned char, the difference between the result of the new-expression and the address returned by the allocation function shall be an integral multiple of the most stringent alignment requirement (3.9 basic.types) of any object type whose size is no greater than the size of the array being created.
The intent of this wording is that the pointer returned by the new-expression will be suitably aligned for any data type that might be placed into the allocated storage (since the allocation function is constrained to return a pointer to maximally-aligned storage). However, there is an implicit assumption that each alignment requirement is an integral multiple of all smaller alignment requirements. While this is probably a valid assumption for all real architectures, there's no reason that the Standard should require it.
For example, assume that int has an alignment requirement of 3 bytes and double has an alignment requirement of 4 bytes. The current wording only requires that a buffer that is big enough for an int or a double be aligned on a 4-byte boundary (the more stringent requirement), but that would allow the buffer to be allocated on an 8-byte boundary — which might not be an acceptable location for an int.
Suggested resolution: Change "of any object type" to "of every object type."
A similar assumption can be found in 5.2.10 expr.reinterpret.cast paragraph 7:
...converting an rvalue of type "pointer to T1" to the type "pointer to T2" (where ... the alignment requirements of T2 are no stricter than those of T1) and back to its original type yields the original pointer value...
Suggested resolution: Change the wording to
...converting an rvalue of type "pointer to T1" to the type "pointer to T2" (where ... the alignment requirements of T1 are an integer multiple of those of T2) and back to its original type yields the original pointer value...
The same change would also be needed in paragraph 9.
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:
struct copy_throw {
copy_throw(const copy_throw&)
{ throw std::logic_error("Cannot copy!"); }
copy_throw(long, copy_throw)
{ }
copy_throw()
{ }
};
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 3.7.3.2 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...
Looking up operator new in a new-expression uses a different mechanism from ordinary lookup. According to 5.3.4 expr.new paragraph 9,
If the new-expression begins with a unary :: operator, the allocation function's name is looked up in the global scope. Otherwise, if the allocated type is a class type T or array thereof, the allocation function's name is looked up in the scope of T. If this lookup fails to find the name, or if the allocated type is not a class type, the allocation function's name is looked up in the global scope.
Note in particular that the scope in which the new-expression occurs is not considered. For example,
void f() {
void* operator new(std::size_t, void*);
int* i = new int; // okay?
}
In this example, the implicit reference to operator new(std::size_t) finds the global declaration, even though the block-scope declaration of operator new with a different signature would hide it from an ordinary reference.
This seems strange; either the block-scope declaration should be ill-formed or it should be found by the lookup.
Notes from October 2004 meeting:
The CWG agreed that the block-scope declaration should not be found by the lookup in a new-expression. It would, however, be found by ordinary lookup if the allocation function were invoked explicitly.
(See also issue 256.)
An implementation may have an unspecified amount of array allocation overhead (5.3.4 expr.new paragraph 10), so that evaluation of a new-expression in which the new-type-id is T[n] involves a request for more than n * sizeof(T) bytes of storage through the relevant operator new[] function.
The placement operator new[] function does not and cannot check whether the requested size is less than or equal to the size of the provided region of memory (18.4.1.3 lib.new.delete.placement paragraphs 5-6). A program using placement array new must calculate what the requested size will be in advance.
Therefore any program using placement array new must take into account the implementation's array allocation overhead, which cannot be obtained or calculated by any portable means.
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
While the CWG agreed that there is no portable means to accomplish this task in the current language, they felt that a paper is needed to analyze the numerous mechanisms that might address the problem and advance a specific proposal. There is no volunteer to write such a paper at this time.
5.3.4 expr.new paragraph 10 says that the result of an array allocation function and the value of the array new-expression from which it was invoked may be different, allowing for space preceding the array to be used for implementation purposes such as saving the number of elements in the array. However, there is no corresponding description of the relationship between the operand of an array delete-expression and the argument passed to its deallocation function.
3.7.3.2 basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation paragraph 3 does state that
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.
This statement might be read as requiring an implementation, when processing an array delete-expression and calling the deallocation function, to perform the inverse of the calculation applied to the result of the allocation function to produce the value of the new-expression. (5.3.5 expr.delete paragraph 2 requires that the operand of an array delete-expression "be the pointer value which resulted from a previous array new-expression.") However, it is not completely clear whether the "shall" expresses an implementation requirement or a program requirement (or both). Furthermore, there is no direct statement about user-defined deallocation functions.
Suggested resolution: A note should be added to 5.3.5 expr.delete to clarify that any offset added in an array new-expression must be subtracted in the array delete-expression.
Does the Standard require that the deallocation function will be called if the destructor throws an exception? For example,
struct S {
~S() { throw 0; }
};
void f() {
try {
delete new S;
}
catch(...) { }
}
The question is whether the memory for the S object will be freed or not. It doesn't appear that the Standard answers the question, although most people would probably assume that it will be freed.
Notes from 04/01 meeting:
There is a widespread feeling that it is a poor programming practice to allow destructors to terminate with an exception (see issue 219). This question is thus viewed as a tradeoff between efficiency and supporting "bad code." It was observed that there is no way in the current language to protect against a throwing destructor, since the throw might come from a virtual override.
It was suggested that the resolution to the issue might be to make it implementation-defined whether the storage is freed if the destructor throws. Others suggested that the Standard should require that the storage be freed, with the understanding that implementations might have a flag to allow optimizing away the overhead. Still others thought that both this issue and issue 219 should be resolved by forbidding a destructor to exit via an exception. No consensus was reached.
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).
12.5 class.free paragraph 4 says thatif 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
The meaning of an old-style cast is described in terms of const_cast, static_cast, and reinterpret_cast in 5.4 expr.cast paragraph 5. Ignoring const_cast for the moment, it basically says that if the conversion performed by a given old-style cast is one of those performed by static_cast, the conversion is interpreted as if it were a static_cast; otherwise, it's interpreted as if it were a reinterpret_cast, if possible. The following example is given in illustration:
struct A {};
struct I1 : A {};
struct I2 : A {};
struct D : I1, I2 {};
A *foo( D *p ) {
return (A*)( p ); // ill-formed static_cast interpretation
}
The obvious intent here is that a derived-to-base pointer conversion is one of the conversions that can be performed using static_cast, so (A*)(p) is equivalent to static_cast<A*>(p), which is ill-formed because of the ambiguity.
Unfortunately, the description of static_cast in 5.2.9 expr.static.cast does NOT support this interpretation. The problem is in the way 5.2.9 expr.static.cast lists the kinds of casts that can be performed using static_cast. Rather than saying something like "All standard conversions can be performed using static_cast," it says
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.
Given the declarations above, the hypothetical declaration
A* t(p);
is NOT well-formed, because of the ambiguity. Therefore the old-style cast (A*)(p) is NOT one of the conversions that can be performed using static_cast, and (A*)(p) is equivalent to reinterpret_cast<A*>(p), which is well-formed under 5.2.10 expr.reinterpret.cast paragraph 7.
Other situations besides ambiguity which might raise similar questions include access violations, casting from virtual base to derived, and casting pointers-to-members when virtual inheritance is involved.
Does an explicit temporary of an integral type qualify as an integral constant expression? For instance,
void* p = int(); // well-formed?
It would appear to be, since int() is an explicit type conversion according to 5.2.3 expr.type.conv (at least, it's described in a section entitled "Explicit type conversion") and type conversions to integral types are permitted in integral constant expressions (5.19 expr.const). However, this reasoning is somewhat tenuous, and some at least have argued otherwise.
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;
}
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>());
printf("int *: %d\n", conv_int2<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.
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 (3.7.2 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.
7 dcl.dcl paragraph 3 reads,
In a simple-declaration, the optional
init-declarator-list can be omitted only 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 those specifiers are
among the names being declared by the declaration... 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. [Example:
enum { }; // ill-formed
typedef class { }; // ill-formed
—end example]
In the absence of any explicit restrictions in
7.1.3
dcl.typedef
, this paragraph appears
to allow declarations like the following:
typedef struct S { }; // no declarator
typedef enum { e1 }; // no declarator
In fact, the final example in
7
dcl.dcl
paragraph 3 would seem to
indicate that this is intentional: since it is illustrating the
requirement that the decl-specifier-seq must introduce a name
in declarations in which the init-declarator-list is omitted,
presumably the addition of a class name would have made the example
well-formed.
On the other hand, there is no good reason to allow such declarations; the only reasonable scenario in which they might occur is a mistake on the programmer's part, and it would be a service to the programmer to require that such errors be diagnosed.
Suppose we've got this class definition:
struct X {
void f();
static int n;
};
I think I can deduce from the existing standard that the following member definitions are ill-formed:
static void X::f() { }
static int X::n;
To come to that conclusion, however, I have to put together several things in different parts of the standard. I would have expected to find an explicit statement of this somewhere; in particular, I would have expected to find it in 7.1.1 dcl.stc. I don't see it there, or anywhere.
Gabriel Dos Reis: Or in 3.5 basic.link which is about linkage. I would have expected that paragraph to say that that members of class types have external linkage when the enclosing class has an external linkage. Otherwise 3.5 basic.link paragraph 8:
Names not covered by these rules have no linkage.
might imply that such members do not have linkage.
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The question about the linkage of class members is already covered by 3.5 basic.link paragraph 5.
The constraints on type-specifiers given in 7.1.5 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 syntatically 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.
7.1.5.3 dcl.type.elab paragraph 1 seems to impose an ordering constraint on the elements of friend class declarations. However, the general rule is that declaration specifiers can appear in any order. Should
class C friend;
be well-formed?
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 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.
Section 7.3.3 namespace.udecl paragraph 8 says:
A using-declaration is a declaration and can therefore be used repeatedly where (and only where) multiple declarations are allowed.It contains the following example:
namespace A {
int i;
}
namespace A1 {
using A::i;
using A::i; // OK: double declaration
}
void f()
{
using A::i;
using A::i; // error: double declaration
}
However, if "using A::i;" is really a declaration, and not a definition, it is far from clear that repeating it should be an error in either context.
Consider:
namespace A {
int i;
void g();
}
void f() {
using A::g;
using A::g;
}
Surely the definition of f should be analogous to
void f() {
void g();
void g();
}
which is well-formed because "void g();" is a declaration and
not a definition.
Indeed, if the double using-declaration for A::i is prohibited in f, why should it be allowed in namespace A1?
Proposed Resolution (04/99): Change the comment "// error: double declaration" to "// OK: double declaration". (This should be reviewed against existing practice.)
Notes from 04/00 meeting:
The core language working group was unable to come to consensus over what kind of declaration a using-declaration should emulate. In a straw poll, 7 members favored allowing using-declarations wherever a non-definition declaration could appear, while 4 preferred to allow multiple using-declarations only in namespace scope (the rationale being that the permission for multiple using-declarations is primarily to support its use in multiple header files, which are seldom included anywhere other than namespace scope). John Spicer pointed out that friend declarations can appear multiple times in class scope and asked if using-declarations would have the same property under the "like a declaration" resolution.
As a result of the lack of agreement, the issue was returned to "open" status.
See also issues 56, 85, and 138..
Additional notes (January, 2005):
Some related issues have been raised concerning the following example (modified from a C++ validation suite test):
struct A
{
int i;
static int j;
};
struct B : A { };
struct C : A { };
struct D : virtual B, virtual C
{
using B::i;
using C::i;
using B::j;
using C::j;
};
Currently, it appears that the using-declarations of i are ill-formed, on the basis of 7.3.3 namespace.udecl paragraph 10:
Since a using-declaration is a declaration, the restrictions on declarations of the same name in the same declarative region (3.3 basic.scope) also apply to using-declarations.
Because the using-declarations of i refer to different objects, declaring them in the same scope is not permitted under 3.3 basic.scope. It might, however, be preferable to treat this case as many other ambiguities are: allow the declaration but make the program ill-formed if a name reference resolves to the ambiguous declarations.
The status of the using-declarations of j, however, is less clear. They both declare the same entity and thus do not violate the rules of 3.3 basic.scope. This might (or might not) violate the restrictions of 9.2 class.mem paragraph 1:
Except when used to declare friends (11.4 class.friend) or to introduce the name of a member of a base class into a derived class (7.3.3 namespace.udecl, 11.3 class.access.dcl), member-declarations declare members of the class, and each such member-declaration shall declare at least one member name of the class. A member shall not be declared twice in the member-specification, except that a nested class or member class template can be declared and then later defined.
Do the using-declarations of j repeatedly declare the same member? Or is the preceding sentence an indication that a using-declaration is not a declaration of a member?
The following came up recently on comp.lang.c++.moderated (edited for brevity):
namespace N1 {
template<typename T> void f( T* x ) {
// ... other stuff ...
delete x;
}
}
namespace N2 {
using N1::f;
template<> void f<int>( int* ); // A: ill-formed
class Test {
~Test() { }
friend void f<>( Test* x ); // B: ill-formed?
};
}
I strongly suspect, but don't have standardese to prove, that the friend declaration in line B is ill-formed. Can someone show me the text that allows or disallows line B?
Here's my reasoning: Writing "using" to pull the name into namespace N2 merely allows code in N2 to use the name in a call without qualification (per 7.3.3 namespace.udecl). But just as declaring a specialization must be done in the namespace where the template really lives (hence line A is ill-formed), I suspect that declaring a specialization as a friend must likewise be done using the original namespace name, not obliquely through a "using". I see nothing in 7.3.3 namespace.udecl that would permit this use. Is there?
Andrey Tarasevich: 14.5.3 temp.friend paragraph 2 seems to get pretty close: "A friend declaration that is not a template declaration and in which the name of the friend is an unqualified 'template-id' shall refer to a specialization of a function template declared in the nearest enclosing namespace scope".
Herb Sutter: OK, thanks. Then the question in this is the word "declared" -- in particular, we already know we cannot declare a specialization of a template in any other namespace but the original one.
John Spicer: This seems like a simple question, but it isn't.
First of all, I don't think the standard comments on this usage one way or the other.
A similar example using a namespace qualified name is ill-formed based on 8.3 dcl.meaning paragraph 1:
namespace N1 {
void f();
}
namespace N2 {
using N1::f;
class A {
friend void N2::f();
};
}
Core issue 138 deals with this example:
void foo();
namespace A{
using ::foo;
class X{
friend void foo();
};
}
The proposed resolution (not yet approved) for issue 138 is that the friend declares a new foo that conflicts with the using-declaration and results in an error.
Your example is different than this though because the presence of the explicit argument list means that this is not declaring a new f but is instead using a previously declared f.
One reservation I have about allowing the example is the desire to have consistent rules for all of the "declaration like" uses of template functions. Issue 275 (in DR status) addresses the issue of unqualified names in explicit instantiation and explicit specialization declarations. It requires that such declarations refer to templates from the namespace containing the explicit instantiation or explicit specialization. I believe this rule is necessary for those directives but is not really required for friend declarations -- but there is the consistency issue.
Notes from April 2003 meeting:
This is related to issue 138. John Spicer is supposed to update his paper on this topic. This is a new case not covered in that paper. We agreed that the B line should be allowed.
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 (11.4 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?
According to 8.3 dcl.meaning paragraph 1, the declarator in the definition or explicit instantiation of a namespace member can only be qualified if the definition or explicit instantiation appears outside the member's namespace:
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 (11.4 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.
There is no similar restriction on a qualified-id in a class definition (9 class paragraph 5):
If a class-head contains a nested-name-specifier, the class-specifier shall refer to a class that was previously declared directly in the class or namespace to which the nested-name-specifier refers (i.e., neither inherited nor introduced by a using-declaration), and the class-specifier shall appear in a namespace enclosing the previous declaration.
An elaborated-type-specifier in an explicit instatiation containing a qualified-id is also not prohibited from appearing in the namespace nominated by its nested-name-specifier (14.7.2 temp.explicit paragraph 2):
An explicit instantiation shall appear in an enclosing namespace of its template. If the name declared in the explicit instantiation is an unqualified name, the explicit instantiation shall appear in the namespace where its template is declared.
(This asymmetry is due to the removal of inappropriate mention of classes in 8.3 dcl.meaning by issue 40 and a failure to insert the intended restrictions elsewhere.)
An example of this inconsistency is:
namespace N {
template <class T> struct S { };
template <class T> void foo () { }
template struct N::S<int>; // OK
template void N::foo<int>(); // ill-formed
}
It is not clear that any purpose is served by the “outside of its namespace” restriction on declarators in definitions and explicit instantiations; if possible, it would be desirable to reconcile the treatment of declarators and class names by removing the restriction on declarators (which appears to be widespread implementation practice, anyway).
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).
The following example appears to be well-formed, with the partial specialization matching the type of Y::f(), even though it is rejected by many compilers:
template<class T> struct X;
template<class R> struct X< R() > {
};
template<class F, class T> void test(F T::* pmf) {
X<F> x;
}
struct Y {
void f() {
}
};
int main() {
test( &Y::f );
}
However, 8.3.5 dcl.fct paragraph 4 says,
A cv-qualifier-seq shall only be part of the function type for a non-static member function, the function type to which a pointer to member refers, or the top-level function type of a function typedef declaration. The effect of a cv-qualifier-seq in a function declarator is not the same as adding cv-qualification on top of the function type. In the latter case, the cv-qualifiers are ignored.
This specification makes it impossible to write a partial specialization for a const member function:
template<class R> struct X<R() const> {
};
A template argument is not one of the permitted contexts for cv-qualification of a function type. This restriction should be removed.
The current wording of 8.3.5 dcl.fct paragraph 6 encompasses more than it should:
If the type of a parameter includes a type of the form “pointer to array of unknown bound of T” or “reference to array of unknown bound of T,” the program is ill-formed. [Footnote: This excludes parameters of type “ptr-arr-seq T2” where T2 is “pointer to array of unknown bound of T” and where ptr-arr-seq means any sequence of “pointer to” and “array of” derived declarator types. This exclusion applies to the parameters of the function, and if a parameter is a pointer to function or pointer to member function then to its parameters also, etc. —end footnote]
The normative wording (contrary to the intention expressed in the footnote) excludes declarations like
template<class T> struct S {};
void f(S<int (*)[]>);
and
struct S {};
void f(int(*S::*)[]);
but not
struct S {};
void f(int(S::*)[]);
The standard is not precise enough about when the default arguments of member functions are parsed. This leads to confusion over whether certain constructs are legal or not, and the validity of certain compiler implementation algorithms.
8.3.6 dcl.fct.default paragraph 5 says "names in the expression are bound, and the semantic constraints are checked, at the point where the default argument expression appears"
However, further on at paragraph 9 in the same section there is an example, where the salient parts are
int b;
class X {
int mem2 (int i = b); // OK use X::b
static int b;
};
which appears to contradict the former constraint. At the point the default
argument expression appears in the definition of X, X::b has not been
declared, so one would expect ::b to be bound. This of course appears to
violate 3.3.6
basic.scope.class paragraph 1(2) "A name N used in
a class S shall
refer to the same declaration in its context and when reevaluated in the
complete scope of S. No diagnostic is required."
Furthermore 3.3.6 basic.scope.class paragraph 1(1) gives the scope of names declared in class to "consist not only of the declarative region following the name's declarator, but also of .. default arguments ...". Thus implying that X::b is in scope in the default argument of X::mem2 previously.
That previous paragraph hints at an implementation technique of saving the token stream of a default argument expression and parsing it at the end of the class definition (much like the bodies of functions defined in the class). This is a technique employed by GCC and, from its behaviour, in the EDG front end. The standard leaves two things unspecified. Firstly, is a default argument expression permitted to call a static member function declared later in the class in such a way as to require evaluation of that function's default arguments? I.e. is the following well formed?
class A {
static int Foo (int i = Baz ());
static int Baz (int i = Bar ());
static int Bar (int i = 5);
};
If that is well formed, at what point does the non-sensicalness of
class B {
static int Foo (int i = Baz ());
static int Baz (int i = Foo());
};
become detected? Is it when B is complete? Is it when B::Foo or B::Baz is
called in such a way to require default argument expansion? Or is no
diagnostic required?
The other problem is with collecting the tokens that form the default argument expression. Default arguments which contain template-ids with more than one parameter present a difficulty in determining when the default argument finishes. Consider,
template <int A, typename B> struct T { static int i;};
class C {
int Foo (int i = T<1, int>::i);
};
The default argument contains a non-parenthesized comma. Is it required
that this comma is seen as part of the default argument expression and not
the beginning of another of argument declaration? To accept this as
part of the default argument would require name lookup of T (to determine
that the '<' was part of a template argument list and not a less-than
operator) before C is complete. Furthermore, the more pathological
class D {
int Foo (int i = T<1, int>::i);
template <int A, typename B> struct T {static int i;};
};
would be very hard to accept. Even though T is declared after Foo, T is
in scope within Foo's default argument expression.
Suggested resolution:
Append the following text to 8.3.6 dcl.fct.default paragraph 8.
The default argument expression of a member function declared in the class definition consists of the sequence of tokens up until the next non-parenthesized, non-bracketed comma or close parenthesis. Furthermore such default argument expressions shall not require evaluation of a default argument of a function declared later in the class.
This would make the above A, B, C and D ill formed and is in line with the existing compiler practice that I am aware of.
Notes from the October, 2005 meeting:
The CWG agreed that the first example (A) is currently well-formed and that it is not unreasonable to expect implementations to handle it by processing default arguments recursively.
Is this program well-formed?
struct S {
static int f2(int = f1()); // OK?
static int f1(int = 2);
};
int main()
{
return S::f2();
}
A class member function can in general refer to class members that are declared lexically later. But what about referring to default arguments of member functions that haven't yet been declared?
It seems to me that if f2 can refer to f1, it can also refer to the default argument of f1, but at least one compiler disagrees.
It is not clear whether the following declaration is well-formed:
struct S { int i; } s = { { 1 } };
According to 8.5.1
dcl.init.aggr
paragraph 2, a brace-enclosed initializer is permitted for a
subaggregate of an aggregate; however, i is a scalar, not an
aggregate. 8.5
dcl.init
paragraph 13
says that a standalone declaration like
int i = { 1 };
is permitted, but it is not clear whether this says anything about the
form of initializers for scalar members of aggregates.
This is (more) clearly permitted by the C89 Standard.
Paragraph 9 of 8.5 dcl.init says:
If no initializer is specified for an object, and the object is of (possibly cv-qualified) non-POD class type (or array thereof), the object shall be default-initialized; if the object is of const-qualified type, the underlying class type shall have a user-declared default constructor. Otherwise, if no initializer is specified for an object, the object and its subobjects, if any, have an indeterminate initial value; if the object or any of its subobjects are of const-qualified type, the program is ill-formed.
What if a const POD object has no non-static data members? This wording requires an empty initializer for such cases:
struct Z {
// no data members
operator int() const { return 0; }
};
void f() {
const Z z1; // ill-formed: no initializer
const Z z2 = { }; // well-formed
}
Similar comments apply to a non-POD const object, all of whose non-static data members and base class subobjects have default constructors. Why should the class of such an object be required to have a user-declared default constructor?
(See also issue 78.)
The definition of default initialization (8.5 dcl.init paragraph 5) is:
if T is a non-POD class type (clause 9 class), the default constructor for T is called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T has no accessible default constructor);
if T is an array type, each element is default-initialized;
otherwise, the object is zero-initialized.
However, default initialization is invoked only for non-POD class types and arrays thereof (5.3.4 expr.new paragraph 15 for new-expressions, 8.5 dcl.init paragraph 10 for top-level objects, and 12.6.2 class.base.init paragraph 4 for member and base class subobjects — but see issue 510). Consequently, all cases that invoke default initialization are handled by the first two bullets; the third bullet can never be reached. Its presence is misleading, so it should be removed.
The wording resulting from the resolution of issue 302 does not quite implement the intent of the issue. The revised wording of 3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 2 is:
A default constructor for a class is used by default initialization or value initialization as specified in 8.5 dcl.init.
This sounds as if 8.5 dcl.init specifies how and under what circumstances value initialization uses a default constructor (which was, in fact, the case for default initialization in the original wording). However, the normative text there makes it plain that value initialization does not call the default constructor (the permission granted to implementations to call the default constructor for value initialization is in a non-normative footnote).
The example that occasioned this observation raises an additional question. Consider:
struct POD {
const int x;
};
POD data = POD();
According to the (revised) resolution of issue 302, this code is ill-formed because the implicitly-declared default constructor will be implicitly defined as a result of being used by value initialization (12.1 class.ctor paragraph 7), and the implicitly-defined constructor fails to initialize a const-qualified member (12.6.2 class.base.init paragraph 4). This seems unfortunate, because the (trivial) default constructor of a POD class is otherwise not used — default initialization applies only to non-PODs — and it is not actually needed in value initialization. Perhaps value initialization should be defined to “use” the default constructor only for non-POD classes? If so, both of these problems would be resolved by rewording the above-referenced sentence of 3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 2 as:
A default constructor for a non-POD class is used by default initialization or value initializationas specified in(8.5 dcl.init).
A recent GCC bug report ( http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11633) asks about the validity of
int count = 23;
int foo[] = { count++, count++, count++ };
is this undefined or unspecified or something else? I can find nothing in
8.5.1
dcl.init.aggr that indicates whether the components of
an initializer-list are evaluated in order or not, or whether they
have sequence points between them.
6.7.8/23 of the C99 std has this to say
The order in which any side effects occur among the initialization list expressions is unspecified.I think similar wording is needed in 8.5.1 dcl.init.aggr
Steve Adamczyk: I believe the standard is clear that each initializer expression in the above is a full-expression (1.9 intro.execution/12-13; see also issue 392) and therefore there is a sequence point after each expression (1.9 intro.execution/16). I agree that the standard does not seem to dictate the order in which the expressions are evaluated, and perhaps it should. Does anyone know of a compiler that would not evaluate the expressions left to right?
Mike Simons: Actually there is one, that does not do left to right: gcc/C++. None of the post increment operations take effect until after the statement finishes. So in the sample code gcc stores 23 into all positions in the array. The commercial vendor C++ compilers for AIX, Solaris, Tru64, HPUX (parisc and ia64), and Windows, all do sequence points at each ',' in the initializer list.
In 9 class paragraph 4, the first sentence says "A structure is a class definition defined with the class-key struct". As far as I know, there is no such thing as a structure in C++; it certainly isn't listed as one of the possible compound types in 3.9.2 basic.compound. And defining structures opens the question of whether a forward declaration is a structure or not. The parallel here with union (which follows immediately) suggests that structures and classes are really different things, since the same wording is used, and classes and unions do have some real differences, which manifest themselves outside of the definition. It also suggests that since one can't forward declare union with class and vice versa, the same should hold for struct and class -- I believe that the intent was that one could use struct and class interchangeably in forward declaration.
Suggested resolution:
I suggest something like the following:
If a class is defined with the class-key class, its members and base classes are private by default. If a class is defined with the class-key struct, its members and base classes are public by default. If a class is defined with the class-key union, its members are public by default, and it holds only one data member at a time. Such classes are called unions, and obey a number of additional restrictions, see 9.5 class.union.
In looking at a large handful of core issues related to elaborated-type-specifiers and the naming of classes in general, I discovered an odd fact. It turns out that there is exactly one place in the grammar where nested-name-specifier is not immediately preceded by "::opt": in class-head, which is used only for class definitions. So technically, this example is ill-formed, and should evoke a syntax error:
struct A;
struct ::A { };
However, all of EDG, GCC and Microsoft's compiler accept it without a qualm. In fact, I couldn't get any of them to even warn about it.
Suggested resolution:
It would simplify the grammar, and apparently better reflect existing practice, to factor the global-scope operator into the rule for nested-name-specifier.
A POD-struct is not permitted to have a user-declared copy assignment operator (9 class paragraph 4). However, a template assignment operator is not considered a copy assignment operator, even though its specializations can be selected by overload resolution for performing copy operations (12.8 class.copy paragraph 9 and especially footnote 114). Consequently, X in the following code is a POD, notwithstanding the fact that copy assignment (for a non-const operand) is a member function call rather than a bitwise copy:
struct X {
template<typename T> const X& operator=(T&);
};
void f() {
X x1, x2;
x1 = x2; // calls X::operator=<X>(X&)
}
Is this intentional?
There are several problems with the terms defined in 9 class paragraph 4:
A structure is a class defined with the class-key struct; its members and base classes (clause 10 class.derived) are public by default (clause 11 class.access). A union is a class defined with the class-key union; its members are public by default and it holds only one data member at a time (9.5 class.union). [Note: aggregates of class type are described in 8.5.1 dcl.init.aggr. —end note] A POD-struct is an aggregate class that has no non-static data members of type non-POD-struct, non-POD-union (or array of such types) or reference, and has no user-declared copy assignment operator and no user-declared destructor. Similarly, a POD-union is an aggregate union that has no non-static data members of type non-POD-struct, non-POD-union (or array of such types) or reference, and has no user-declared copy assignment operator and no user-declared destructor. A POD class is a class that is either a POD-struct or a POD-union.
Although the term structure is defined here, it is used only infrequently throughout the Standard, often apparently inadvertently and consequently incorrectly:
5.2.5 expr.ref paragraph 4: the use is in a note and is arguably correct and helpful.
9.2 class.mem paragraph 11: the term is used (three times) in an example. There appears to be no reason to use it instead of “class,” but its use is not problematic.
17.1.8 defns.iostream.templates: the traits argument to the iostream class templates is (presumably unintentionally) constrained to be a structure, i.e., to use the struct keyword and not the class keyword in its definition.
B limits paragraph 2: the minimum number of declarator operators is given for structures and unions but not for classes defined using the class keyword.
B limits paragraph 2: class, structure, and union are used as disjoint terms in describing nesting levels. (The nonexistent nonterminal struct-declaration-list is used, as well.)
There does not appear to be a reason for defining the term structure. The one reference where it is arguably useful, in the note in 5.2.5 expr.ref, could be rewritten as something like, “'class objects' may be defined using the class, struct, or union class-keys; see clause 9 class.”
Based on its usage later in the paragraph and elsewhere, “POD-struct” appears to be intended to exclude unions. However, the definition of “aggregate class” in 8.5.1 dcl.init.aggr paragraph 1 includes unions. Furthermore, the name itself is confusing, leading to the question of whether it was intended that only classes defined using struct could be POD-structs or if class-classes are included. The definition should probably be rewritten as, “A POD-struct is an aggregate class defined with the class-key struct or the class-key class that has no...
In most references outside clause 9 class, POD-struct and POD-union are mentioned together and treated identically. These references should be changed to refer to the unified term, “POD class.”
Noted in passing: 18.1 lib.support.types paragraph 4 refers to the undefined terms “POD structure” and (unhyphenated) “POD union;” the pair should be replaced by a single reference to “POD-class.”
There doesn't seem to be a prohibition in 9.5 class.union against a declaration like
union { int : 0; } x;
Should that be valid? If so, 8.5
dcl.init
paragraph 5 third bullet, which deals with
default-initialization of unions, should say that no initialization is
done if there are no data members.
What about:
union { } x;
static union { };
If the first example is well-formed, should either or both of these cases
be well-formed as well?
(See also the resolution for issue 151.)
Notes from 10/00 meeting: The resolution to issue 178, which was accepted as a DR, addresses the first point above (default initialization). The other questions have not yet been decided, however.
Can a member of a union be of a class that has a user-declared non-default constructor? The restrictions on union membership in 9.5 class.union paragraph 1 only mention default and copy constructors:
An object of a class with a non-trivial default constructor (12.1 class.ctor), a non-trivial copy constructor (12.8 class.copy), a non-trivial destructor (12.4 class.dtor), or a non-trivial copy assignment operator (13.5.3 over.ass, 12.8 class.copy) cannot be a member of a union...
(12.1 class.ctor paragraph 11 does say, “a non-trivial constructor,” but it's not clear whether that was intended to refer only to default and copy constructors or to any user-declared constructor. For example, 12.2 class.temporary paragraph 3 also speaks of a “non-trivial constructor,” but the cross-references there make it clear that only default and copy constructors are in view.)
9.3 class.mfct paragraph 5 says this about member functions defined lexically outside the class:
the member function name shall be qualified by its class name using the :: operator
9.4.2 class.static.data paragraph 2 says this about static data members:
In the definition at namespace scope, the name of the static data member shall be qualified by its class name using the :: operator
I would have expected similar wording in 9.7 class.nest paragraph 3 for nested classes. Without such wording, the following seems to be legal (and is allowed by all the compilers I have):
struct base {
struct nested;
};
struct derived : base {};
struct derived::nested {};
Is this just an oversight, or is there some rationale for this behavior?
The term "ambiguous base class" doesn't seem to be actually defined anywhere. 10.2 class.member.lookup paragraph 7 seems like the place to do it.
According to 10.4 class.abstract paragraph 6,
Member functions can be called from a constructor (or destructor) of an abstract class; the effect of making a virtual call (10.3 class.virtual) to a pure virtual function directly or indirectly for the object being created (or destroyed) from such a constructor (or destructor) is undefined.
This prohibition is unnecessarily restrictive. It should not apply to cases in which the pure virtual function has been defined.
Currently the "pure" specifier for a virtual member function has two meanings that need not be related:
The prohibition of virtual calls to pure virtual functions arises from the first meaning and unnecessarily penalizes those who only need the second.
For example, consider a scenario such as the following. A class B is defined containing a (non-pure) virtual function f that provides some initialization and is thus called from the base class constructor. As time passes, a number of classes are derived from B and it is noticed that each needs to override f, so it is decided to make B::f pure to enforce this convention while still leaving the original definition of B::f to perform its needed initialization. However, the act of making B::f pure means that every reference to f that might occur during the execution of one of B's constructors must be tracked down and edited to be a qualified reference to B::f. This process is tedious and error-prone: needed edits might be overlooked, and calls that actually should be virtual when the containing function is called other than during construction/destruction might be incorrectly changed.
Suggested resolution: Allow virtual calls to pure virtual functions if the function has been defined.
I have heard a claim that the following code is valid, but I don't see why.
struct A {
int foo ();
};
struct B: A {
private:
using A::foo;
};
int main ()
{
return B ().foo ();
}
It seems to me that the using declaration in B should hide the public foo in A. Then the call to B::foo should fail because B::foo is not accessible in main.
Am I missing something?
Steve Adamczyk: This is similar to the last example in 11.2 class.access.base. In prose, the rule is that if you have access to cast to a base class and you have access to the member in the base class, you are given access in the derived class. In this case, A is a public base class of B and foo is public in A, so you can access foo through a B object. The actual permission for this is in the fourth bullet in 11.2 class.access.base paragraph 4.
The wording changes for issue 9 make this clearer, but I believe even without them this example could be discerned to be valid.
See my paper J16/96-0034, WG21/N0852 on this topic.
Steve Clamage: But a using-declaration is a declaration (7.3.3 namespace.udecl). Compare with
struct B : A {
private:
int foo();
};
In this case, the call would certainly be invalid, even though your argument about casting B to an A would make it OK. Your argument basically says that an access adjustment to make something less accessible has no effect. That also doesn't sound right.
Steve Adamczyk: I agree that is strange. I do think that's what 11.2 class.access.base says, but perhaps that's not what we want it to say.
12.2 class.temporary paragraph 3 simply states the requirement that temporaries created during the evaluation of an expression
are destroyed as the last step in evaluating the full-expression (1.9) that (lexically) contains the point where they were created.There is nothing said about the relative order in which these temporaries are destroyed.
Paragraph 5, dealing with temporaries bound to references, says
the temporaries created during the evaluation of the expression initializing the reference, except the temporary 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.Is this difference intentional? May temporaries in expressions other than those initializing references be deleted in non-LIFO order?
Notes from 04/00 meeting:
Steve Adamczyk expressed concern about constraining implementations that are capable of fine-grained parallelism -- they may be unable to determine the order of construction without adding undesirable overhead.
A posting in comp.lang.c++.moderated prompted me to try the following code:
struct S {
template<typename T, int N> (&operator T())[N];
};
The goal is to have a (deducible) conversion operator template to a reference-to-array type.
This is accepted by several front ends (g++, EDG), but I now believe that 12.3.2 class.conv.fct paragraph 1 actually prohibits this. The issue here is that we do in fact specify (part of) a return type.
OTOH, I think it is legitimate to expect that this is expressible in the language (preferably not using the syntax above ;-). Maybe we should extend the syntax to allow the following alternative?
struct S {
template<typename T, int N> operator (T(&)[N])();
};
Eric Niebler: If the syntax is extended to support this, similar constructs should also be considered. For instance, I can't for the life of me figure out how to write a conversion member function template to return a member function pointer. It could be useful if you were defining a null_t type. This is probably due to my own ignorance, but getting the syntax right is tricky.
Eg.
struct null_t {
// null object pointer. works.
template<typename T> operator T*() const { return 0; }
// null member pointer. works.
template<typename T,typename U> operator T U::*() const { return 0; }
// null member fn ptr. doesn't work (with Comeau online). my error?
template<typename T,typename U> operator T (U::*)()() const { return 0; }
};
Martin Sebor: Intriguing question. I have no idea how to do it in a single declaration but splitting it up into two steps seems to work:
struct null_t {
template <class T, class U>
struct ptr_mem_fun_t {
typedef T (U::*type)();
};
template <class T, class U>
operator typename ptr_mem_fun_t<T, U>::type () const {
return 0;
}
};
Note: In the April 2003 meeting, the core working group noticed that the above doesn't actually work.
Note that destructors suffer from similar problems as those of constructors dealt with in issue 194 and in 263 (constructors as friends). Also, the wording in 12.4 class.dtor, paragraph 1 does not permit a destructor to be defined outside of the memberlist.
Change 12.4 class.dtor, paragraph 1 from
...A special declarator syntax using an optional function-specifier (7.1.2 dcl.fct.spec) followed by ~ followed by the destructor's class name followed by an empty parameter list is used to declare the destructor in a class definition. In such a declaration, the ~ followed by the destructor's class name can be enclosed in optional parentheses; such parentheses are ignored....
to
...A special declarator syntax using an optional sequence of function-specifiers (7.1.2 dcl.fct.spec), an optional friend keyword, an optional sequence of function-specifiers (7.1.2 dcl.fct.spec) followed by an optional :: scope-resolution-operator followed by an optional nested-name-specifier followed by ~ followed by the destructor's class name followed by an empty parameter list is used to declare the destructor. The optional nested-name-specifier shall not be specified in the declaration of a destructor within the member-list of the class of which the destructor is a member. In such a declaration, the optional :: scope-resolution-operator followed by an optional nested-name-specifier followed by ~ followed by the destructor's class name can be enclosed in optional parentheses; such parentheses are ignored....
Paragraph 4 of 12.5 class.free speaks of looking up a deallocation function. While it is an error if a placement deallocation function alone is found by this lookup, there seems to be an assumption that a placement deallocation function and a usual deallocation function can both be declared in a given class scope without creating an ambiguity. The normal mechanism by which ambiguity is avoided when functions of the same name are declared in the same scope is overload resolution; however, there is no mention of overload resolution in the description of the lookup. In fact, there appears to be nothing in the current wording that handles this case. That is, the following example appears to be ill-formed, according to the current wording:
struct S {
void operator delete(void*);
void operator delete(void*, int);
};
void f(S* p) {
delete p; // ill-formed: ambiguous operator delete
}
Suggested resolution (Mike Miller, March 2002):
I think you might get the right effect by replacing the last sentence of 12.5 class.free paragraph 4 with something like:
After removing all placement deallocation functions, the result of the lookup shall contain an unambiguous and accessible deallocation function.
12.6 class.init paragraph 2 says,
When an array of class objects is initialized (either explicitly or implicitly), the constructor shall be called for each element of the array, following the subscript order;
That implies that, given
struct POD {
int x;
};
POD data[10] = {};
this should call the implicitly declared default ctor 10 times, leaving 10 uninitialized ints, rather than value initialize each member of data, resulting in 10 initialized ints (which is required by 8.5.1 dcl.init.aggr paragraph 7).
I suggest rephrasing along the lines:
When an array is initialized (either explicitly or implicitly), each element of the array shall be initialized in turn, following the subscript order;
This would allow for PODs and other classes with a dual nature under value/default initialization, and cover copy initialization for arrays too.
Must a constructor for an abstract base class provide a mem-initializer for each virtual base class from which it is directly or indirectly derived? Since the initialization of virtual base classes is performed by the most-derived class, and since an abstract base class can never be the most-derived class, there would seem to be no reason to require constructors for abstract base classes to initialize virtual base classes.
It is not clear from the Standard whether there actually is such a requirement or not. The relevant text is found in 12.6.2 class.base.init paragraph 6:
All sub-objects representing virtual base classes are initialized by the constructor of the most derived class (1.8 intro.object). If the constructor of the most derived class does not specify a mem-initializer for a virtual base class V, then V's default constructor is called to initialize the virtual base class subobject. If V does not have an accessible default constructor, the initialization is ill-formed. A mem-initializer naming a virtual base class shall be ignored during execution of the constructor of any class that is not the most derived class.
This paragraph requires only that the most-derived class's constructor have a mem-initializer for virtual base classes. Should the silence be construed as permission for constructors of classes that are not the most-derived to omit such mem-initializers?
Christopher Lester, on comp.std.c++, March 19, 2004: If any of you reading this posting happen to be members of the above working group, I would like to encourage you to review the suggestion contained therein, as it seems to me that the final tenor of the submission is both (a) correct (the silence of the standard DOES mandate the omission) and (b) describes what most users would intuitively expect and desire from the C++ language as well.
The suggestion is to make it clearer that constructors for abstract base classes should not be required to provide initialisers for any virtual base classes they contain (as only the most-derived class has the job of initialising virtual base classes, and an abstract base class cannot possibly be a most-derived class).
For example:
struct A {
A(const int i, const int j) {};
};
struct B1 : virtual public A {
virtual void moo()=0;
B1() {}; // (1) Look! not "B1() : A(5,6) {};"
};
struct B2 : virtual public A {
virtual void cow()=0;
B2() {}; // (2) Look! not "B2() : A(7,8) {};"
};
struct C : public B1, public B2 {
C() : A(2,3) {};
void moo() {};
void cow() {};
};
int main() {
C c;
return 0;
};
I believe that, by not expressly forbidding it, the standard does (and should!) allow the above code. However, as the standard doesn't expressly allow it either (have I missed something?) there appears to be room for misunderstanding. For example, g++ version 3.2.3 (and maybe other versions as well) rejects the above code with messages like:
In constructor `B1::B1()':
no matching function for call to `A::A()'
candidates are: A::A(const A&)
A::A(int, int)
Fair enough, the standard is perhaps not clear enough. But it seems to be a shame that although this issue was first raised in 2000, we are still living with it today.
Note that we can work-around, and persuade g++ to compile the above by either (a) providing a default constructor A() for A, or (b) supplying default values for i and j in A(i,j), or (c) replace the construtors B1() and B2() with the forms shown in the two comments in the above example.
All three of these workarounds may at times be appropriate, but equally there are other times when all of these workarounds are particularly bad. (a) and (b) may be very bad if you are trying to enforce string contracts among objects, while (c) is just barmy (I mean why did I have to invent random numbers like 5, 6, 7 and 8 just to get the code to compile?).
So to to round up, then, my plea to the working group is: "at the very least, please make the standard clearer on this issue, but preferrably make the decision to expressly allow code that looks something like the above"
Jack Rouse: In 12.8 class.copy paragraph 8, the standard includes the following about the copying of class subobjects in such a constructor:
Mike Miller: I'm more concerned about 12.8 class.copy paragraph 7, which lists the situations in which an implicitly-defined copy constructor can render a program ill-formed. Inaccessible and ambiguous copy constructors are listed, but not a copy constructor with a cv-qualification mismatch. These two paragraphs taken together could be read as requiring the calling of a copy constructor with a non-const reference parameter for a const data member.
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 tempolates.)
Consider the following example:
class B1 {};
typedef void (B1::*PB1) (); // memptr to B1
class B2 {};
typedef void (B2::*PB2) (); // memptr to B2
class D1 : public B1, public B2 {};
typedef void (D1::*PD) (); // memptr to D1
struct S {
operator PB1(); // can be converted to PD
} s;
struct T {
operator PB2(); // can be converted to PD
} t;
void foo() {
s == t; // Is this an error?
}
According to 13.6 over.built paragraph 16, there is an operator== for PD (“For every pointer to member type...”), so why wouldn't it be used for this comparison?
Mike Miller: The problem, as I understand it, is that 13.3.1.2 over.match.oper paragraph 3, bullet 3, sub-bullet 3 is broader than it was intended to be. It says that candidate built-in operators must “accept operand types to which the given operand or operands can be converted according to 13.3.3.1 over.best.ics.” 13.3.3.1.2 over.ics.user describes user-defined conversions as having a second standard conversion sequence, and there is nothing to restrict that second standard conversion sequence.
My initial thought on addressing this would be to say that user-defined conversion sequences whose second standard conversion sequence contains a pointer conversion or a pointer-to-member conversion are not considered when selecting built-in candidate operator functions. They would still be applicable after the hand-off to Clause 5 (e.g., in bringing the operands to their common type, 5.10 expr.eq, or composite pointer type, 5.9 expr.rel), just not in constructing the list of built-in candidate operator functions.
I started to suggest restricting the second standard conversion sequence to conversions having Promotion or Exact Match rank, but that would exclude the Boolean conversions, which are needed for !, &&, and ||. (It would have also restricted the floating-integral conversions, though, which might be a good idea. They can't be used implicitly, I think, because there would be an ambiguity among all the promoted integral types; however, none of the compilers I tested even tried those conversions because the errors I got were not ambiguities but things like “floating point operands not allowed for %”.)
Bill Gibbons: I recall seeing this problem before, though possibly not in committee discussions. As written this rule makes the set of candidate functions dependent on what classes have been defined, including classes not otherwise required to have been defined in order for "==" to be meaningful. For templates this implies that the set is dependent on what templates have been instantiated, e.g.
template<class T> class U : public T { };
U<B1> u; // changes the set of candidate functions to include
// operator==(U<B1>,U<B1>)?
There may be other places where the existence of a class definition, or worse, a template instantiation, changes the semantics of an otherwise valid program (e.g. pointer conversions?) but it seems like something to be avoided.
According to 13.3.3 over.match.best paragraph 4, the following program appears to be ill-formed:
void f(int, int=0);
void f(int=0, int);
void g() {
f();
}
Though I do not expect this is the intent of this paragraph in the standard.
13.3.3 over.match.best paragraph 4:
If the best viable function resolves to a function for which multiple
declarations were found, and if at least
two of these declarations or the declarations they refer to in the case of
using-declarations specify a
default argument that made the function viable, the program is ill-formed.
[Example:
namespace A {
extern "C" void f(int = 5);
}
namespace B {
extern "C" void f(int = 5);
}
using A::f;
using B::f;
void use() {
f(3); //OK, default argument was not used for viability
f(); //Error: found default argument twice
}
end example]
It's not clear how overloading and partial ordering handle non-deduced pairs of corresponding arguments. For example:
template<typename T>
struct A { typedef char* type; };
template<typename T> char* f1(T, typename A<T>::type); // #1
template<typename T> long* f1(T*, typename A<T>::type*); // #2
long* p1 = f1(p1, 0); // #3
I thought that #3 is ambiguous but different compilers disagree on that. Comeau C/C++ 4.3.3 (EDG 3.0.3) accepted the code, GCC 3.2 and BCC 5.5 selected #1 while VC7.1+ yields ambiguity.
I intuitively thought that the second pair should prevent overloading from triggering partial ordering since both arguments are non-deduced and has different types - (char*, char**). Just like in the following:
template<typename T> char* f2(T, char*); // #3 template<typename T> long* f2(T*, char**); // #4 long* p2 = f2(p2, 0); // #5
In this case all the compilers I checked found #5 to be ambiguous. The standard and DR 214 is not clear about how partial ordering handle such cases.
I think that overloading should not trigger partial ordering (in step 13.3.3 over.match.best/1/5) if some candidates have non-deduced pairs with different (specialized) types. In this stage the arguments are already adjusted so no need to mention it (i.e. array to pointer). In case that one of the arguments is non-deuced then partial ordering should only consider the type from the specialization:
template<typename T> struct B { typedef T type; };
template<typename T> char* f3(T, T); // #7
template<typename T> long* f3(T, typename B<T>::type); // #8
char* p3 = f3(p3, p3); // #9
According to my reasoning #9 should yield ambiguity since second pair is (T, long*). The second type (i.e. long*) was taken from the specialization candidate of #8. EDG and GCC accepted the code. VC and BCC found an ambiguity.
John Spicer: There may (or may not) be an issue concerning whether nondeduced contexts are handled properly in the partial ordering rules. In general, I think nondeduced contexts work, but we should walk through some examples to make sure we think they work properly.
Rani's description of the problem suggests that he believes that partial ordering is done on the specialized types. This is not correct. Partial ordering is done on the templates themselves, independent of type information from the specialization.
Notes from October 2004 meeting:
John Spicer will investigate further to see if any action is required.
The following example is ambiguous according to the Standard:
struct Y {
operator int();
operator double();
};
void f(Y y) {
double d;
d = y; // Ambiguous: Y::operator int() or Y::operator double()?
}
The reason for the ambiguity is that 13.6 over.built paragraph 18 says that there are candidate functions double& operator=(double&, int) and double& operator=(double&, double) (among others). In each case, the second argument is converted by a user-defined conversion sequence (13.3.3.1.2 over.ics.user) where the initial and final standard conversion sequences are the identity conversion — i.e., the conversion sequences for the second argument are indistinguishable for each of these candidate functions, and they are thus ambiguous.
Intuitively one might expect that, because it converts directly to the target type in the assignment, Y::operator double() would be selected, and in fact, most compilers do select it, but there is currently no rule to distinghish between these user-defined conversions. Should there be?
According to 14 temp paragraph 5,
Except that a function template can be overloaded either by (non-template) functions with the same name or by other function templates with the same name (14.8.3 temp.over ), a template name declared in namespace scope or in class scope shall be unique in that scope.3.3.7 basic.scope.hiding paragraph 2 agrees that only functions, not function templates, can hide a class name declared in the same scope:
A class name (9.1 class.name ) or enumeration name (7.2 dcl.enum ) can be hidden by the name of an object, function, or enumerator declared in the same scope.However, 3.3 basic.scope paragraph 4 treats functions and template functions together in this regard:
Given a set of declarations in a single declarative region, each of which specifies the same unqualified name,
- they shall all refer to the same entity, or all refer to functions and function templates; or
- exactly one declaration shall declare a class name or enumeration name that is not a typedef name and the other declarations shall all refer to the same object or enumerator, or all refer to functions and function templates; in this case the class name or enumeration name is hidden
John Spicer: You should be able to take an existing program and replace an existing function with a function template without breaking unrelated parts of the program. In addition, all of the compilers I tried allow this usage (EDG, Sun, egcs, Watcom, Microsoft, Borland). I would recommend that function templates be handled exactly like functions for purposes of name hiding.
Martin O'Riordan: I don't see any justification for extending the purview of what is decidedly a hack, just for the sake of consistency. In fact, I think we should go further and in the interest of consistency, we should deprecate the hack, scheduling its eventual removal from the C++ language standard.
The hack is there to allow old C programs and especially the 'stat.h' file to compile with minimum effort (also several other Posix and X headers). People changing such older programs have ample opportunity to "do it right". Indeed, if you are adding templates to an existing program, you should probably be placing your templates in a 'namespace', so the issue disappears anyway. The lookup rules should be able to provide the behaviour you need without further hacking.
Taken literally, 14 temp paragraph 2 does not permit operator functions to be templates:
In a function template declaration, the declarator-id shall be a template-name (i.e., not a template-id).
and, in
Issue 301 considered and rejected the idea of changing the definition of template-name to include operator-function-ids and conversion-function-ids. Either that decision should be reconsidered or the various references in the text to template-name should be examined to determine if they should also mention the non-identifier possibilities for function template names.
By analogy with typename, the keyword template used to indicate that a dependent name will be a template name should be optional in contexts where a type is required, e.g., base class lists. We could also consider member and parameter declarations.
This was suggested by issue 314.
None of my compilers accept this, which surprised me a little. Is the base-to-derived member function conversion considered to be a runtime-only thing?
template <class D>
struct B
{
template <class X> void f(X) {}
template <class X, void (D::*)(X) = &B<D>::f<X> >
struct row {};
};
struct D : B<D>
{
void g(int);
row<int,&D::g> r1;
row<char*> r2;
};
John Spicer: This is not among the permitted conversions listed in 14.3.
I'm not sure there is a terribly good reason for that. Some of the template argument rules for external entities were made conservatively because of concerns about issues of mangling template argument names.
David Abrahams: I'd really like to see that restriction loosened. It is a serious inconvenience because there appears to be no way to supply a usable default in this case. Zero would be an OK default if I could use the function pointer's equality to zero as a compile-time switch to choose an empty function implementation:
template <bool x> struct tag {};
template <class D>
struct B
{
template <class X> void f(X) {}
template <class X, void (D::*pmf)(X) = 0 >
struct row {
void h() { h(tag<(pmf == 0)>(), pmf); }
void h(tag<1>, ...) {}
void h(tag<0>, void (D::*q)(X)) { /*something*/}
};
};
struct D : B<D>
{
void g(int);
row<int,&D::g> r1;
row<char*> r2;
};
But there appears to be no way to get that effect either. The result is that you end up doing something like:
template <class X, void (D::*pmf)(X) = 0 >
struct row {
void h() { if (pmf) /*something*/ }
};
which invariably makes compilers warn that you're switching on a constant expression.
In the following example, the template parameter in the partial specialization is non-deducible:
template <class T> struct A { typedef T U; };
template <class T> struct C { };
template <class T> struct C<typename A<T>::U> { };
Several compilers issue errors for this case, but there appears to be nothing in the Standard that would make this ill-formed; it simply seems that the partial specialization will never be matched, so the primary template will be used for all specializations. Should it be ill-formed?
I get the following error diagnostic [from the EDG front end]:
line 8: error: function template "example<T>::foo<R,A>(A)" has
already been declared
R foo(const A);
^
when compiling this piece of code:
struct example {
template<class R, class A> // 1-st member template
R foo(A);
template<class R, class A> // 2-nd member template
const R foo(A&);
template<class R, class A> // 3-d member template
R foo(const A);
};
/*template<> template<>
int example<char>::foo(int&);*/
int main()
{
int (example<char>::* pf)(int&) =
&example<char>::foo;
}
The implementation complains that
template<class R, class A> // 1-st member template R foo(A); template<class R, class A> // 3-d member template R foo(const A);cannot be overloaded and I don't see any reason for it since it is function template specializations that are treated like ordinary non-template functions, meaning that the transformation of a parameter-declaration-clause into the corresponding parameter-type-list is applied to specializations (when determining its type) and not to function templates.
What makes me think so is the contents of 14.5.5.1 temp.over.link and the following sentence from 14.8.2.1 temp.deduct.call "If P is a cv-qualified type, the top level cv-qualifiers of P are ignored for type deduction". If the transformation was to be applied to function templates, then there would be no reason for having that sentence in 14.8.2.1 temp.deduct.call.
14.8.2.2 temp.deduct.funcaddr, which my example is based upon, says nothing about ignoring the top level cv-qualifiers of the function parameters of the function template whose address is being taken.
As a result, I expect that template argument deduction will fail for the 2-nd and 3-d member templates and the 1-st one will be used for the instantiation of the specialization.
Issue 1:
14.5.5.2 temp.func.order paragraph 2 says:
Given two overloaded function templates, whether one is more specialized than another can be determined by transforming each template in turn and using argument deduction (14.8.2 temp.deduct ) to compare it to the other.14.8.2 temp.deduct now has 4 subsections describing argument deduction in different situations. I think this paragraph should point to a subsection of 14.8.2 temp.deduct .
Rationale:
This is not a defect; it is not necessary to pinpoint cross-references to this level of detail.
Issue 2:
14.5.5.2 temp.func.order paragraph 4 says:
Using the transformed function parameter list, perform argument deduction against the other function template. The transformed template is at least as specialized as the other if, and only if, the deduction succeeds and the deduced parameter types are an exact match (so the deduction does not rely on implicit conversions).In "the deduced parameter types are an exact match", the terms exact match do not make it clear what happens when a type T is compared to the reference type T&. Is that an exact match?
Issue 3:
14.5.5.2 temp.func.order paragraph 5 says:
A template is more specialized than another if, and only if, it is at least as specialized as the other template and that template is not at least as specialized as the first.What happens in this case:
template<class T> void f(T,int);
template<class T> void f(T, T);
void f(1,1);
For the first function template, there is no type deduction for the second
parameter. So the rules in this clause seem to imply that the second function
template will be chosen.
Rationale:
This is not a defect; the standard unambiguously makes the above example ill-formed due to ambiguity.
This was split off from issue 214 at the April 2003 meeting.
Nathan Sidwell: John Spicer's proposed resolution does not make the following well-formed.
template <typename T> int Foo (T const *) {return 1;} //#1
template <unsigned I> int Foo (char const (&)[I]) {return 2;} //#2
int main ()
{
return Foo ("a") != 2;
}
Both #1 and #2 can deduce the "a" argument, #1 deduces T as char and #2 deduces I as 2. However, neither is more specialized because the proposed rules do not have any array to pointer decay.
#1 is only deduceable because of the rules in 14.8.2.1 temp.deduct.call paragraph 2 that decay array and function type arguments when the template parameter is not a reference. Given that such behaviour happens in deduction, I believe there should be equivalent behaviour during partial ordering. #2 should be resolved as more specialized as #1. The following alteration to the proposed resolution of DR214 will do that.
Insert before,
the following
For the example above, this change results in deducing 'T const *' against 'char const *' in one direction (which succeeds), and 'char [I]' against 'T const *' in the other (which fails).
John Spicer: I don't consider this a shortcoming of my proposed wording, as I don't think this is part of the current rules. In other words, the resolution of 214 might make it clearer how this case is handled (i.e., clearer that it is not allowed), but I don't believe it represents a change in the language.
I'm not necessarily opposed to such a change, but I think it should be reviewed by the core group as a related change and not a defect in the proposed resolution to 214.
Notes from the October 2003 meeting:
There was some sentiment that it would be desirable to have this case ordered, but we don't think it's worth spending the time to work on it now. If we look at some larger partial ordering changes at some point, we will consider this again.
The Standard does not specify how member and nonmember function templates are to be ordered. This question arises with an example like the following:
struct A {
template<class T> void operator<<(T&);
};
template<class T> struct B { };
template<class T> void operator<<(A&, B<T>&);
int main() {
A a;
B<A> b;
a << b;
}
The two candidates for “a << b” are:
How should we treat the implicit this parameter of #1 and the explicit first parameter of #2?
Option 0: Make them unordered.
Option 1: If either function is a non-static member function, ignore any this parameter and ignore the first parameter of any non-member function. This option will select #2, as “B<T>&” is more specialized than “T&”.
Option 2: Treat the this parameter as if it were of reference to object type, and then perform comparison to the first parameter of the other function. The other function's first parameter will either be another this parameter, or it will be a by-value or by-reference object parameter. In the example above, this option will also select #2.
The difference between option 1 and option 2 can be seen in the following example:
struct A { };
template<class T> struct B {
template<typename R> int operator*(R&); // #1
};
template <typename T> int operator*(T&, A&); // #2
int main() {
A a;
B<A> b;
b * a;
}
Should this select #1, select #2, or be ambiguous? Option 1 will select #2, because “A&” is more specialized than “T&”. Option 2 will make this example ambiguous, because “B<A>&” is more specialized than “T&”.
If one were considering two non-member templates,
template <typename T> int operator*(T&, A&); // #2
template <typename T, typename R> int operator*(B<A>&, R&); // #3
the current rules would make these unordered. Option 2 thus seems more consistent with this existing behavior.
The standard prohibits a class template from having the same name as one of its template parameters (14.6.1 temp.local paragraph 4). This prohibits
template <class X> class X;
for the reason that the template name would hide the parameter, and
such hiding is in general prohibited.
Presumably, we should also prohibit
template <template <class T> class T> struct A;
for the same reason.
Currently, member of nondependent base classes hide references to template parameters in the definition of a derived class template.
Consider the following example:
class B {
typedef void *It; // (1)
// ...
};
class M: B {};
template<typename> X {};
template<typename It> struct S // (2)
: M, X<It> { // (3)
S(It, It); // (4)
// ...
};
As the C++ language currently stands, the name "It" in line (3) refers to the template parameter declared in line (2), but the name "It" in line (4) refers to the typedef in the private base class (declared in line (1)).
This situation is both unintuitive and a hindrance to sound software engineering. (See also the Usenet discussion at http://tinyurl.com/32q8d .) Among other things, it implies that the private section of a base class may change the meaning of the derived class, and (unlike other cases where such things happen) there is no way for the writer of the derived class to defend the code against such intrusion (e.g., by using a qualified name).
Changing this can break code that is valid today. However, such code would have to:
It has been suggested to make situations like these ill-formed. That solution is unattractive however because it still leaves the writer of a derived class template without defense against accidental name conflicts with base members. (Although at least the problem would be guaranteed to be caught at compile time.) Instead, since just about everyone's intuition agrees, I would like to see the rules changed to make class template parameters hide members of the same name in a base class.
See also issue 458.
Notes from the March 2004 meeting:
We have some sympathy for a change, but the current rules fall straightforwardly out of the lookup rules, so they're not “wrong.” Making private members invisible also would solve this problem. We'd be willing to look at a paper proposing that.
Additional discussion (April, 2005):
John Spicer: Base class members are more-or-less treated as members of the class, [so] it is only natural that the base [member] would hide the template parameter.
Daveed Vandevoorde: Are base class members really “more or less” members of the class from a lookup perspective? After all, derived class members can hide base class members of the same name. So there is some pretty definite boundary between those two sets of names. IMO, the template parameters should either sit between those two sets, or they should (for lookup purposes) be treated as members of the class they parameterize (I cannot think of a practical difference between those two formulations).
John Spicer: How is [hiding template parameters] different from the fact that namespace members can be hidden by private parts of a base class? The addition of int C to N::A breaks the code in namespace M in this example:
namespace N {
class A {
private:
int C;
};
}
namespace M {
typedef int C;
class B : public N::A {
void f() {
C c;
}
};
}
Daveed Vandevoorde: C++ has a mechanism in place to handle such situations: qualified names. There is no such mechanism in place for template parameters.
Nathan Myers: What I see as obviously incorrect ... is simply that a name defined right where I can see it, and directly attached to the textual scope of B's class body, is ignored in favor of something found in some other file. I don't care that C1 is defined in A, I have a C1 right here that I have chosen to use. If I want A::C1, I can say so.
I doubt you'll find any regular C++ coder who doesn't find the standard behavior bizarre. If the meaning of any code is changed by fixing this behavior, the overwhelming majority of cases will be mysterious bugs magically fixed.
John Spicer: I have not heard complaints that this is actually a cause of problems in real user code. Where is the evidence that the status quo is actually causing problems?
In this example, the T2 that is found is the one from the base class. I would argue that this is natural because base class members are found as part of the lookup in class B:
struct A {
typedef int T2;
};
template <class T2> struct B : public A {
typedef int T1;
T1 t1;
T2 t2;
};
This rule that base class members hide template parameters was formalized about a dozen years ago because it fell out of the principle that base class members should be found at the same stage of lookup as derived class members, and that to do otherwise would be surprising.
Gabriel Dos Reis: The bottom line is that:
Unless presented with real major programming problems the current rules exhibit, I do not think the simple rule “scopes nest” needs a change that silently mutates program meaning.
Mike Miller: The rationale for the current specification is really very simple:
That's it. Because template parameters are not members, they are hidden by member names (whether inherited or not). I don't find that “bizarre,” or even particularly surprising.
I believe these rules are straightforward and consistent, so I would be opposed to changing them. However, I am not unsympathetic toward Daveed's concern about name hijacking from base classes. How about a rule that would make a program ill-formed if a direct or inherited member hides a template parameter?
Unless this problem is a lot more prevalent than I've heard so far, I would not want to change the lookup rules; making this kind of collision a diagnosable error, however, would prevent hijacking without changing the lookup rules.
Erwin Unruh: I have a different approach that is consistent and changes the interpretation of the questionable code. At present lookup is done in this sequence:
If we change this order to
it is still consistent in that no lookup is placed between the base class and the derived class. However, it introduces another inconsistency: now scopes do not nest the same way as curly braces nest — but base classes are already inconsistent this way.
Nathan Myers: This looks entirely satisfactory. If even this seems like too big a change, it would suffice to say that finding a different name by this search order makes the program ill-formed. Of course, a compiler might issue only a portability warning in that case and use the name found Erwin's way, anyhow.
Gabriel Dos Reis: It is a simple fact, even without templates, that a writer of a derived class cannot protect himself against declaration changes in the base class.
Richard Corden: If a change is to be made, then making it ill-formed is better than just changing the lookup rules.
struct B
{
typedef int T;
virtual void bar (T const & );
};
template <typename T>
struct D : public B
{
virtual void bar (T const & );
};
template class D<float>;
I think changing the semantics of the above code silently would result in very difficult-to-find problems.
Mike Miller: Another case that may need to be considered in deciding on Erwin's suggestion or the “ill-formed” alternative is the treatment of friend declarations described in 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual paragraph 10:
struct A {
typedef int T;
void f(T);
};
template<typename T> struct B {
friend void A::f(T); // Currently T is A::T
};
Notes from the October, 2005 meeting:
The CWG decided not to consider a change to the existing rules at this time without a paper exploring the issue in more detail.
There is some question as to whether 14.6.2 temp.dep paragraph 3 applies to the definition of an explicitly-specialized member of a class template:
In the definition of a class template or a member of a class template, if a base class of the class template depends on a template-parameter, the base class scope is not examined during unqualified name lookup either at the point of definition of the class template or member or during an instantiation of the class template or member.
Consider an example like the following:
template <class T>
struct A {
void foo() {}
};
template <class T>
struct B: A<T> {
int bar();
};
int foo() { return 0; }
template <>
int B<int>::bar() { return foo(); }
int main() {
return B<int>().bar();
}
Does foo in the definition of B<int>::bar() refer to ::foo() or to A<int>::foo()?
The Standard is currently silent on the dependency status of enumerations and enumerators that are members of class templates. There are three questions that must be answered in this regard:
Are enumeration members of class templates dependent types?
It seems clear that nested enumerations must be dependent. For example:
void f(int);
template<typename T> struct S {
enum E { e0 };
void g() {
f(e0);
}
};
void f(S<int>::E);
void x() {
S<int> si;
si->g(); // Should call f(S<int>::E)
}
Is sizeof applied to a nested enumeration a value-dependent expression (14.6.2.3 temp.dep.constexpr)?
There are three distinct cases that might have different answers to this question:
template<typename T> struct S {
enum E { e0 };
};
Here, the size of E is, in principle, known at the time the template is defined.
template<short I> struct S {
enum E { e0 = I };
};
In this case, the minimum size required for E cannot be determined until instantiation, but it is clear that the underlying type need be no larger than short.
template<typename T> struct S {
enum E { e0 = T::e0; };
}
Here, nothing can be known about the size of E at the time the template is defined.
14.6.2.3 temp.dep.constexpr paragraph 2 says that a sizeof expression is value-dependent if the type of the operand is type-dependent. Unless enumerations are given special treatment, all three of these examples will have value-dependent sizes. This could be surprising for the first case, at least, if not the second as well.
Are nested enumerators value-dependent expressions?
Again the question of dependent initializers comes into play. As an example, consider:
template<short I> struct S {
enum E { e0, e1 = I, e2 };
};
There seem to be three possible approaches as to whether the enumerators of E are value-dependent:
The enumerators of a nested enumeration are all value-dependent, regardless of whether they have a value-dependent initializer or not. This is the current position of 14.6.2.3 temp.dep.constexpr paragraph 2, which says that an identifier is value-dependent if it is a name declared with a dependent type.
The enumerators of a nested enumeration are all value-dependent if any of the enumeration's enumerators has a value-dependent initializer. In this approach, e0 would be value-dependent, even though it is clear that it has the value 0.
An enumerator of a nested enumeration is value-dependent only if it has a value-dependent initializer (explict or implicit). This approach would make e1 and e2 value-dependent, but not e0.
An example that bears on the third approach is the following:
template<typename T> struct S {
enum E { N = UINT_MAX, O = T::O };
int a[N + 2];
};
With the normal treatment of enumerations, the type of a might be either int[UINT_MAX+2] or int[1], depending on whether the value of T::O was such that the underlying type of E is unsigned int or long.
One possibility for addressing this problem under the third
approach would be to treat a given enumerator as having the type of
its initializer in such cases, rather than the enumeration type. This
would be similar to the way enumerators are treated within the
enumerator list, before the enumeration declaration is complete
(
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The CWG agreed on the following positions:
Nested enumerations are dependent types.
The result of the sizeof operator applied to a nested enumeration is value-dependent unless there are no dependent initializers in its definition; the first case above is not dependent, while the second and third are dependent.
The approach described in 3.C above is correct. This is similar to the treatment of static const integral data members, which are dependent only if their initializer is dependent.
Notes from the October, 2005 meeting:
There was no consensus among the CWG regarding question #3 (which enumerators should be considered value-dependent). The argument in favor of 3.C is principally that the values of enumerators with non-dependent initializers are known at definition time, so there is no need to treat them as dependent.
One objection to 3.C is that, according to the consensus of the CWG, the enumeration type is dependent and thus even the known values of the enumeration would have a dependent type, which could affect the results when such enumerations are used in expressions. A possible response to this concern would be to treat non-dependent initializers as having the type of the initializer rather than the enumeration type, similar to the treatment of enumerators within the enumerator-list (7.2 dcl.enum paragraph 5). However, this approach would be inconsistent with the treatment of other enumeration types. It would also interfere with overload resolution (e.g., the call in the example under question #1 above would resolve to f(int) with this approach rather than f(S<int>::E)).
Those in favor of option 3.A also suggested that it would be simpler and require less drafting: if all the enumerators have the (dependent) type of the enumeration, 14.6.2.3 temp.dep.constexpr paragraph 2 already says that a name with a dependent type is value-dependent, so nothing further would need to be said. Option 3.C would require additional caveats to exempt some enumerators.
The proponents of 3.A also pointed out that there are many other cases where a known value with a dependent type is treated as dependent:
static const T t = 0;
... A<t> ...
or
template <int I> void f() {
g(I-I);
}
With regard to current practice, g++ and MSVC++ implement 3.A, while EDG implements 3.C.
14.6.2.2 temp.dep.expr paragraph 3 says,
An id-expression is type-dependent if it contains:
- an identifier that was declared with a dependent type...
This treatment seems inadequate with regard to id-expressions in function calls:
According to 14.6.2.1 temp.dep.type paragraph 6,
A type is dependent if it is
- ...
- a compound type constructed from any dependent type...
This would apply to the type of a member function of a class template if any of its parameters are dependent, even if the return type is not dependent. However, there is no need for a call to such a function to be a type-dependent expression because the type of the expression is known at definition time.
This wording does not handle the case of overloaded functions, some of which might have dependent types (however defined) and others not.
14.7.2 temp.explicit defines an explicit instantiation as
Syntactically, that allows things like:
template int S<int>::i = 5, S<int>::j = 7;
which isn't what anyone actually expects. As far as I can tell, nothing in the standard explicitly forbids this, as written. Syntactically, this also allows:
template namespace N { void f(); }
although perhaps the surrounding context is enough to suggest that this is invalid.
Suggested resolution:
I think we should say:
[Steve Adamczyk: presumably, this should have template at the beginning.]
and then say that:
There are similar problems in 14.7.3 temp.expl.spec:
Here, I think we want:
with similar restrictions as above.
[Steve Adamczyk: This also needs to have template <> at the beginning, possibly repeated.]
Issue 470 specified the explicit instantiation of members of explicitly-instantiated class templates. In restricting the affected members to those “whose definition is visible at the point of instantiation,” however, this resolution introduced an incompatibility between explicitly instantiating a member function or static data member and explicitly instantiating the class template of which it is a member (14.7.2 temp.explicit paragraph 3 requires only that the class template definition, not that of the member function or static data member, be visible at the point of the explicit instantiation). It would be better to treat the member instantiations the same, regardless of whether they are directly or indirectly explicitly instantiated.
The Standard does not definitively say when the inline specifier may be used in an explicit instantiation. For example, the following would seem to be innocuous, as the function being instantiated is already inline:
template <typename T> struct S {
void f() { }
};
template inline void S<int>::f();
However, presumably one would want to prohibit something like:
template <typename T> void f(T) { }
template inline void f(int);
7.1.2 dcl.fct.spec paragraph 4 (after application of the resolution of issue 317) comes close to covering the obvious problematic cases:
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, it shall be declared inline in all translation units in which it appears; no diagnostic is required.
This would seem to prohibit the latter case, but apparently would not handle an exported template that was instantiated as inline (because the definition might not appear in the same translation unit as the inline instantiation). It would be better to make a clear statement regarding the use of inline in explicit instantiations.
The note in paragraph 5 of 14.8.1 temp.arg.explicit makes clear that explicit template arguments cannot be supplied in invocations of constructors and conversion functions because they are called without using a name. However, there is nothing in the current wording of the Standard that makes declaring a constructor or conversion operator that is unusable because of nondeduced parameters (i.e., that would need to be specified explicitly) ill-formed. It would be a service to the programmer to diagnose this useless construct as early as possible.
Nicolai Josuttis sent me an example like the following:
template <typename RET, typename T1, typename T2>
const RET& min (const T1& a, const T2& b)
{
return (a < b ? a : b);
}
template const int& min<int>(const int&,const int&); // #1
template const int& min(const int&,const int&); // #2
Among the questions was whether explicit instantiation #2 is valid, where deduction is required to determine the type of RET.
The first thing I realized when researching this is that the standard does not really spell out the rules for deduction in declarative contexts (friend declarations, explicit specializations, and explicit instantiations). For explicit instantiations, 14.7.2 temp.explicit paragraph 2 does mention deduction, but it doesn't say which set of deduction rules from 14.8.2 temp.deduct should be applied.
Second, Nicolai pointed out that 14.7.2 temp.explicit paragraph 6 says
A trailing template-argument can be left unspecified in an explicit instantiation provided it can be deduced from the type of a function parameter (14.8.2 temp.deduct).
This prohibits cases like #2, but I believe this was not considered in the wording as there is no reason not to include the return type in the deduction process.
I think there may have been some confusion because the return type is excluded when doing deduction on a function call. But there are contexts where the return type is included in deduction, for example, when taking the address of a function template specialization.
Suggested resolution:
Andrei Iltchenko points out that the standard has no wording that defines how to determine which template is specialized by an explicit specialization of a function template. He suggests "template argument deduction in such cases proceeds in the same way as when taking the address of a function template, which is described in 14.8.2.2 temp.deduct.funcaddr."
John Spicer points out that the same problem exists for all similar declarations, i.e., friend declarations and explicit instantiation directives. Finding a corresponding placement operator delete may have a similar problem.
John Spicer: There are two aspects of "determining which template" is referred to by a declaration: determining the function template associated with the named specialization, and determining the values of the template arguments of the specialization.
template <class T> void f(T); #1
template <class T> void f(T*); #2
template <> void f(int*);
In other words, which f is being specialized (#1 or #2)? And then, what are the deduced template arguments?
14.5.5.2 temp.func.order does say that partial ordering is done in contexts such as this. Is this sufficient, or do we need to say more about the selection of the function template to be selected?
14.8.2 temp.deduct probably needs a new section to cover argument deduction for cases like this.
Consider the following program:
template <typename T> int ref (T&) { return 0; }
template <typename T> int ref (const T&) { return 1; }
template <typename T> int ref (const volatile T&) { return 2; }
template <typename T> int ref (volatile T&) { return 4; }
template <typename T> int ptr (T*) { return 0; }
template <typename T> int ptr (const T*) { return 8; }
template <typename T> int ptr (const volatile T*) { return 16; }
template <typename T> int ptr (volatile T*) { return 32; }
void foo() {}
int main()
{
return ref(foo) + ptr(&foo);
}
The Standard appears to specify that the value returned from main is 2. The reason for this result is that references and pointers are handled differently in template argument deduction.
For the reference case, 14.8.2.1 temp.deduct.call paragraph 3 says that “If P is a reference type, the type referred to by P is used for type deduction.” Because of issue 295, all four of the types for the ref function parameters are the same, with no cv-qualification; overload resolution does not find a best match among the parameters and thus the most-specialized function is selected.
For the pointer type, argument deduction does not get as far as forming a cv-qualified function type; instead, argument deduction fails in the cv-qualified cases because of the cv-qualification mismatch, and only the cv-unqualified version of ptr survives as a viable function.
I think the choice of ignoring cv-qualifiers in the reference case but not the pointer case is very troublesome. The reason is that when one considers function objects as function parameters, it introduces a semantic difference whether the function parameter is declared a reference or a pointer. In all other contexts, it does not matter: a function name decays to a pointer and the resulting semantics are the same.
Consider the following:
template <typename T> struct X {}; // #1
template <typename T> struct X<const T>; //#2
template struct X<int&>; //#3
Which specialization are we instantiating in #3? The "obvious" answer is #1, because "int&" doesn't have a top level cv-qualification. However, there's also an argument saying that we should actually be instantiating #2. The argument is: int& can be taken as a match for either one (top-level cv-qualifiers are ignored on references, so they're equally good), and given two equally good matches we must choose the more specialized one.
Is this a valid argument? If so, is this behavior intentional?
John Spicer: I don't see the rationale for any choice other than #1. While it is true that if you attempt to apply const to a reference type it just gets dropped, that is very different from saying that a reference type is acceptable where a const-qualified type is required.
If the type matched both templates, the const one would be more specialized, but "int&" does not match "const T".
Nathan Sidwell: thanks for bringing this one to the committee. However this is resolved, I'd like clarification on the followup questions in the gcc bug report regarding deduced and non-deduced contexts and function templates. Here're those questions for y'all,
template <typename T> void Foo (T *); // #1 template <typename T> void Foo (T const *); // #2 void Baz (); Foo (Baz); // which? template <typename T> T const *Foo (T *); // #1 void Baz (); Foo (Baz); // well formed? template <typename T> void Foo (T *, T const * = 0); void Baz (); Foo (Baz); // well formed?
BTW, I didn't go trying to break things, I implemented the cv-qualifier ignoring requirements and fell over this. I could find nothing in the standard saying 'don't do this ignoring during deduction'.
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:
It was tentatively agreed at the Santa Cruz meeting that exception specifications should fully participate in the type system. This change would address gaps in the current static checking of exception specifications such as
void (*p)() throw(int);
void (**pp)() throw() = &p; // not currently an error
This is such a major change that it deserves to be a separate issue.
See also issues 25, 87, and 133.
Destructors that throw can easily cause programs to terminate, with no possible defense. Example: Given
struct XY { X x; Y y; };
Assume that X::~X() is the only destructor in the entire program that can throw. Assume further that Y construction is the only other operation in the whole program that can throw. Then XY cannot be used safely, in any context whatsoever, period — even simply declaring an XY object can crash the program:
XY xy; // construction attempt might terminate program:
// 1. construct x -- succeeds
// 2. construct y -- fails, throws exception
// 3. clean up by destroying x -- fails, throws exception,
// but an exception is already active, so call
// std::terminate() (oops)
// there is no defense
So it is highly dangerous to have even one destructor that could throw.
Suggested Resolution:
Fix the above problem in one of the following two ways. I prefer the first.
Fergus Henderson: I disagree. Code using XY may well be safe, if X::~X() only throws if std::uncaught_exception() is false.
I think the current exception handling scheme in C++ is certainly flawed, but the flaws are IMHO design flaws, not minor technical defects, and I don't think they can be solved by minor tweaks to the existing design. I think that at this point it is probably better to keep the standard stable, and learn to live with the existing flaws, rather than trying to solve them via TC.
Bjarne Stroustrup: I strongly prefer to have the call to std::terminate() be conforming. I see std::terminate() as a proper way to blow away "the current mess" and get to the next level of error handling. I do not want that escape to be non-conforming — that would imply that programs relying on a error handling based on serious errors being handled by terminating a process (which happens to be a C++ program) in std::terminate() becomes non-conforming. In many systems, there are — and/or should be — error-handling and recovery mechanisms beyond what is offered by a single C++ program.
Andy Koenig: If we were to prohibit writing a destructor that can throw, how would I solve the following problem?
I want to write a class that does buffered output. Among the other properties of that class is that destroying an object of that class writes the last buffer on the output device before freeing memory.
What should my class do if writing that last buffer indicates a hardware output error? My user had the option to flush the last buffer explicitly before destroying the object, but didn't do so, and therefore did not anticipate such a problem. Unfortunately, the problem happened anyway. Should I be required to suppress this error indication anyway? In all cases?
In practice, I would rather thrown an exception, even at the risk of crashing the program if we happen to be in the middle of stack unwinding. The reason is that the program would crash only if a hardware error occurred in the middle of cleaning up from some other error that was in the process of being handled. I would rather have such a bizarre coincidence cause a crash, which stands a chance of being diagnosed later, than to be ignored entirely and leave the system in a state where the ignore error could cause other trouble later that is even harder to diagnose.
If I'm not allowed to throw an exception when I detect this problem, what are my options?
Herb Sutter: I understand that some people might feel that "a failed dtor during stack unwinding is preferable in certain cases" (e.g., when recovery can be done beyond the scope of the program), but the problem is "says who?" It is the application program that should be able to decide whether or not such semantics are correct for it, and the problem here is that with the status quo a program cannot defend itself against a std::terminate() — period. The lower-level code makes the decision for everyone. In the original example, the mere existence of an XY object puts at risk every program that uses it, whether std::terminate() makes sense for that program or not, and there is no way for a program to protect itself.
That the "it's okay if the process goes south should a rare combination of things happen" decision should be made by lower-level code (e.g., X dtor) for all apps that use it, and which doesn't even understand the context of any of the hundreds of apps that use it, just cannot be correct.
(See also issue 265.)
In language imported directly from the C Standard, 16.2 cpp.include paragraph 5 says,
The implementation provides unique mappings for sequences consisting of one or more nondigits (2.10 lex.name) followed by a period (.) and a single nondigit.
This is clearly intended to support C header names like stdio.h. However, C++ has header names like cstdio that do not conform to this pattern but still presumably require “unique mappings.”
It is not clear from the Standard what the result of the following example should be:
#define NIL(xxx) xxx #define G_0(arg) NIL(G_1)(arg) #define G_1(arg) NIL(arg) G_0(42)
The relevant text from the Standard is found in 16.3.4 cpp.rescan paragraph 2:
If the name of the macro being replaced is found during this scan of the replacement list (not including the rest of the source file's preprocessing tokens), it is not replaced. Further, if any nested replacements encounter the name of the macro being replaced, it is not replaced. These nonreplaced macro name preprocessing tokens are no longer available for further replacement even if they are later (re)examined in contexts in which that macro name preprocessing token would otherwise have been replaced.
The sequence of expansion of G0(42) is as follows:
G0(42) NIL(G_1)(42) G_1(42) NIL(42)
The question is whether the use of NIL in the last line of this sequence qualifies for non-replacement under the cited text. If it does, the result will be NIL(42). If it does not, the result will be simply 42.
The original intent of the J11 committee in this text was that the result should be 42, as demonstrated by the original pseudo-code description of the replacement algorithm provided by Dave Prosser, its author. The English description, however, omits some of the subtleties of the pseudo-code and thus arguably gives an incorrect answer for this case.
Suggested resolution (Mike Miller): Replace the cited paragraph with the following:
As long as the scan involves only preprocessing tokens from a given macro's replacement list, or tokens resulting from a replacement of those tokens, an occurrence of the macro's name will not result in further replacement, even if it is later (re)examined in contexts in which that macro name preprocessing token would otherwise have been replaced.
Once the scan reaches the preprocessing token following a macro's replacement list — including as part of the argument list for that or another macro — the macro's name is once again available for replacement. [Example:
#define NIL(xxx) xxx #define G_0(arg) NIL(G_1)(arg) #define G_1(arg) NIL(arg) G_0(42) // result is 42, not NIL(42)The reason that NIL(42) is replaced is that (42) comes from outside the replacement list of NIL(G_1), hence the occurrence of NIL within the replacement list for NIL(G_1) (via the replacement of G_1(42)) is not marked as nonreplaceable. —end example]
(Note: The resolution of this issue must be coordinated with J11/WG14.)
Notes (via Tom Plum) from April, 2004 WG14 Meeting:
Back in the 1980's it was understood by several WG14 people that there were tiny differences between the "non-replacement" verbiage and the attempts to produce pseudo-code. The committee's decision was that no realistic programs "in the wild" would venture into this area, and trying to reduce the uncertainties is not worth the risk of changing conformance status of implementations or programs.
During the discussion of issues 167 and 174, it became apparent that there was no consensus on the meaning of deprecation. Some thought that deprecating a feature reflected an intent to remove it from the language. Others viewed it more as an encouragement to programmers not to use certain constructs, even though they might be supported in perpetuity.
There is a formal-sounding definition of deprecation in Annex D depr paragraph 2:
deprecated is defined as: Normative for the current edition of the Standard, but not guaranteed to be part of the Standard in future revisions.However, this definition would appear to say that any non-deprecated feature is "guaranteed to be part of the Standard in future revisions." It's not clear that that implication was intended, so this definition may need to be amended.
This issue is intended to provide an avenue for discussing and resolving those questions, after which the original issues may be reopened if that is deemed desirable.
The list of identifier characters specified in the C++ standard annex E extendid and the C99 standard annex D are different. The C99 standard includes more characters.
The C++ standard says that the characters are from "ISO/IEC PDTR 10176" while the C99 standard says "ISO/IEC TR 10176". I'm guessing that the PDTR is an earlier draft of the TR.
Should the list in the C++ standard be updated?
Tom Plum: In my opinion, the "identifier character" issue has not been resolved with certainty within SC22.
One critical difference in C99 was the decision to allow a compiler to accept more characters than are given in the annex. This allows for future expansion.
The broader issue concerns the venue in which the "identifier character" issue will receive ongoing resolution.
Notes from 10/00 meeting:
The core language working group expressed a strong preference (13/0/5 in favor/opposed/abstaining) that the list of identifier characters should be extensible, as is the case in C99. However, the fact that this topic is under active discussion by other bodies was deemed sufficient reason to defer any changes to the C++ specification until the situation is more stable.
Notes from October, 2005 meeting:
The working group expressed interest in the kind of approach taken by XML 1.1, in which the definition of an identifier character is done by excluding large ranges of the Unicode character set and accepting any character outside those ranges, rather than by affirmatively designating each identifier character in each language. As noted above, consideration of this issue was previously deferred pending other related standardization efforts. Clark Nelson will investigate whether these have reached a point at which progress on this issue in C++ is now possible.