| Document number: | J16/07-0255 = WG21 N2395 |
| Date: | 2007-09-09 |
| 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:
Section references in this document reflect the section numbering of document J16/07-0229 = WG21 N2369.
The purpose of these documents is to record the disposition of issues that have come before the Core Language Working Group of the ANSI (J16) and ISO (WG21) C++ Standard Committee.
Some issues represent potential defects in the ISO/IEC IS 14882:2003 document and corrected defects in the earlier ISO/IEC 14882:1998 document; others refer to text in the working draft for the next revision of the C++ language, commonly known as C++0x, and not to any Standard text. Issues 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.)
This set of documents exists in two slightly different versions. The Committee Version (this version) is the master version and should be made available only to committee members. The Public Version is extracted from the Committee Version by removal of sensitive and/or unnecessary information, such as drafting assignments, reflector message numbers, and the like.
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.comeaucomputing.com/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.
4 [conv] paragraph 1 says,
Standard conversions are implicit conversions defined for built-in types.
However, enumeration types (which take part in the integral promotions) and class types (which take part in the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion) are not “built-in” types, so the definition of “standard conversions” is wrong.
Proposed resolution (October, 2006):
Change 4 [conv] paragraph 1 as follows:
Standard conversions are implicit conversionsdefined for built-in typeswith built-in meaning...
From message 9324.
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.
Proposed resolution (October, 2006):
Change 5.3.1 [expr.unary.op] paragraph 1 as follows:
The unary * operator performsindirectiondereferencing: the expression to which it is applied shall be a pointer...
Change 8.3.4 [dcl.array] paragraph 8 as follows:
The results are added andindirectiondereferencing applied to yield an array (of five integers), which in turn is converted to a pointer to the first of the integers.
Change 8.3.5 [dcl.fct] paragraph 9 as follows:
The binding of *fpi(int) is *(fpi(int)), so the declaration suggests, and the same construction in an expression requires, the calling of a function fpi, and then usingindirectiondereferencing through the (pointer) result to yield an integer. In the declarator (*pif)(const char*, const char*), the extra parentheses are necessary to indicate thatindirectiondereferencing through a pointer to a function yields a function, which is then called.
Change Table 45 in 20.4.7.4 [lib.meta.trans.ptr] as follows:
The member typedef type shall be the same as T, except any top levelindirectiondereferencing has been removed.
Change the index for * and “dereferencing” no longer to refer to “indirection.”
[Drafting note: 26.5.9.2 [lib.indirect.array.assign] requires no change. Many more places in the current wording use “dereferencing” than “indirection.”]
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
Proposed resolution (October, 2006):
Change 5.3.5 [expr.delete] paragraph 3 as follows:
In the first alternative (delete object), if the static type of the dereferenced (5.3.1 [expr.unary.op]) operand is different from its dynamic type, the static type shall be a base class of the dereferenced operand’s dynamic type and the static type shall have a virtual destructor or the behavior is undefined. In the second alternative (delete array) if the dynamic type of the object to be deleted differs from its static type, the behavior is undefined.
Change the footnote in 12.5 [class.free] paragraph 4 as follows:
A similar provision is not needed for the array version of operator delete because 5.3.5 [expr.delete] requires that in this situation, the static type of thedelete-expression’s operandobject to be deleted be the same as its dynamic type.
Change the footnote in 12.5 [class.free] paragraph 5 as follows:
If the static typein the delete-expressionof the object to be deleted is different from the dynamic type and the destructor is not virtual the size might be incorrect, but that case is already undefined; see 5.3.5 [expr.delete].
[Drafting notes: No change is required for 10.3 [class.virtual] paragraph 7 because “the type of the pointer” includes the pointed-to type. No change is required for 12.5 [class.free] paragraph 4 because “...used to deallocate a class object whose static type...” already refers to the object (and not the operand expression).]
The grammar in 7 [dcl.dcl] paragraph 1 says that a declaration-seq is either declaration or declaration-seq declaration. Some declarations end with semicolons and others (e.g. function definitions and namespace declarations) don't. This means that users who put a semicolon after every declaration are technically writing ill-formed code. The trouble is that in this respect the standard is out of sync with reality. It's convenient to allow semicolons after every declaration, and there's no implementation difficulty in doing so. All existing compilers accept this, except in extra-pedantic mode. When all implementations disagree with the standard, it's time for the standard to change.
Suggested resolution:
In the grammar in 7 [dcl.dcl] paragraph 11, change the second line in the definition of declaration-seq to
Proposed resolution (October, 2006):
Add the indicated lines to the grammar definitions in 7 [dcl.dcl] paragraph 1:
declaration:
...
namespace-definition
empty-declaration
...
static_assert-declaration:
static_assert ( constant-expression , string-literal ) ;
empty-declaration:
;
Add the following as a new paragraph after 7 [dcl.dcl] paragraph 4:
An empty-declaration has no effect.
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?
Notes from the April, 2006 meeting:
In discussing issue 548, the CWG agreed that the prohibition of qualified declarators inside their namespace should be removed.
Proposed resolution (October, 2006):
Remove the indicated words from 8.3 [dcl.meaning] paragraph 1:
...An unqualified-id occurring in a declarator-id shall be a simple identifier except for the declaration of some special functions (12.3 [class.conv], 12.4 [class.dtor], 13.5 [over.oper]) and for the declaration of template specializations or partial specializations ().A declarator-id shall not be qualified except for the definition of a member function (9.3 [class.mfct]) or static data member (9.4 [class.static]) outside of its class, the definition or explicit instantiation of a function or variable member of a namespace outside of its namespace, or the definition of a previously declared explicit specialization outside of its namespace, or the declaration of a friend function that is a member of another class or namespace (11.4 [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...
[Drafting note: The omission of “outside of its class” here does not give permission for redeclaration of class members; that is still prohibited by 9.2 [class.mem] paragraph 1. The removal of the enumeration of the kinds of declarations in which a qualified-id can appear does allow a typedef declaration to use a qualified-id, which was not permitted before; if that is undesirable, the prohibition can be reinstated here.]
A POD struct (9 [class] paragraph 4) 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 that has no user-defined copy assignment operator and no user-defined destructor.” Meanwhile, an aggregate class (8.5.1 [dcl.init.aggr] paragraph 1) must have “no user-declared constructors, no private or protecte non-static data members, no base classes, and no virtual functions.”
This is too strict. The whole reason we define the notion of POD is for the layout compatibility guarantees in 9.2 [class.mem] paragraphs 14-17 and the byte-for-byte copying guarantees of 3.9 [basic.types] paragraph 2. None of those guarantees should be affected by the presence of ordinary constructors, any more than they're affected by the presence of any other member function. It’s silly for the standard to make layout and memcpy guarantees for this class:
struct A {
int n;
};
but not for this one:
struct B {
int n;
B(n_) : n(n_) { }
};
With either A or B, it ought to be possible to save an array of those objects to disk with a single call to Unix’s write(2) system call or the equivalent. At present the standard says that it’s legal for A but not B, and there isn’t any good reason for that distinction.
Suggested resolution:
The following doesn’t fix all problems (in particular it still doesn’t let us treat pair<int, int> as a POD), but at least it goes a long way toward fixing the problem: in 8.5.1 [dcl.init.aggr] paragraph 1, change “no user-declared constructors” to “no nontrivial default constructor and no user-declared copy constructor.”
(Yes, I’m aware that this proposed change would also allow brace initialization for some types that don't currently allow it. I consider this to be a feature, not a bug.)
Mike Miller: I agree that something needs to be done about “POD,” but I’m not sure that this is it. My own take is that “POD” is used for too many different things — things that are related but not identical — and the concept should be split. The current definition is useful, as is, for issues regarding initialization and lifetime. For example, I wouldn’t want to relax the prohibition of jumping over a constructor call in 6.7 [stmt.dcl] (which is currently phrased in terms of POD types). On the other hand, I agree that the presence of a user-declared constructor says nothing about layout and bitwise copying. This needs (IMHO) a non-trivial amount of further study to determine how many categories we need (instead of just POD versus non-POD), which guarantees and prohibitions go with which category, the interaction of “memcpy initialization” (for want of a better term) with object lifetime, etc.
(See paper J16/06-0172 = WG21 N2102.)
Proposed resolution (April, 2007):
Adoption of the POD proposal (currently J16/07-0090 = WG21 N2230) will resolve this issue.
(From messages 11916-8, 11940, 11945, 11948-50, and 11955-60.)
It should be made clear in 9.2 [class.mem] paragraph 15,
Two POD-struct (clause 9 [class]) types are layout-compatible if they have the same number of non-static data members, and corresponding non-static data members (in order) have layout-compatible types (3.9 [basic.types]).
that “corresponding... (in order)” refers to declaration order and not the order in which the members are laid out in memory.
However, this raises the point that, in cases where an access-specifier is involved, the declaration and layout order can be different (see paragraph 12). Thus, for two POD-struct classes A and B,
struct A {
char c;
int i;
}
struct B {
char c;
public:
int i;
};
a compiler could move B::i before B::c, but A::c must precede A::i. It does not seem reasonable that these two POD-structs would be considered layout-compatible, even though they satisfy the requirement that corresponding members in declaration order are layout-compatible.
One possibility would be to require that neither POD-struct have an access-specifier in order to be considered layout-compatible. (It's not sufficient to require that they have the same access-specifiers, because the compiler is not required to lay out the storage the same way for different classes.)
8.5.1 [dcl.init.aggr] paragraph 2 should also be clarified to make explicit that “increasing... member order” refers to declaration order.
Proposed resolution (April, 2007):
This issue will be resolved by the adoption of the POD proposal (currently J16/07-0090 = WG21 N2230). That paper does not propose a change to the wording of 8.5.1 [dcl.init.aggr] paragraph 2, but the CWG feels that the intent of that paragraph (that the initializers are used in declaration order) is clear enough not to require revision.
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.
Proposed resolution (October, 2006):
Change 12.6 [class.init] paragraph 3 as follows:
When an array of class objects is initialized (either explicitly or implicitly) and the elements are initialized by constructor, the constructor shall be called for each element of the array, following the subscript order; see 8.3.4 [dcl.array].
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.
Proposed resolution (March, 2007):
In the second bulleted list of 13.3.3 [over.match.best] paragraph 1, move the second and third bullets to the end of the list, to read as follows:
for some argument j, ICSj(F1) is a better conversion sequence than ICSj(F2), or, if not that,
the context is an initialization by user-defined conversion (see 8.5 [dcl.init], 13.3.1.5 [over.match.conv], and 13.3.1.6 [over.match.ref]) and the standard conversion sequence from the return type of F1 to the destination type (i.e., the type of the entity being initialized) is a better conversion sequence than the standard conversion sequence from the return type of F2 to the destination type, [Example: ... —end example] or, if not that,
- F1 is a non-template function and F2 is a function template specialization, or, if not that,
F1 and F2 are function template specializations, and the function template for F1 is more specialized than the template for F2 according to the partial ordering rules described in 14.5.6.2 [temp.func.order].
(From messages 11594 and 11596.)
One of the requirements for two template-ids to refer to the same class or function (14.4 [temp.type] paragraph 1) is that
If we have some template of the form
template <unsigned char c> struct A;
does this imply that A<'\001'> and A<257> (for an eight-bit char) refer to different specializations?
Jens Maurer: Looks like it should say something like, “their corresponding converted non-type template arguments of integral or enumeration type have identical values.”
Proposed resolution (April, 2007):
The change to 14.4 [temp.type] paragraph 1 shown in document J16/07-0118 = WG21 N2258, in which the syntactic non-terminal template-argument is changed to the English term “template argument” is sufficient to remove the confusion about whether the value before or after conversion is used in matching template-ids.
(From reflector message 11465.)
14.6.2 [temp.dep] paragraph 3 reads,
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.
This wording applies only to definitions of class templates and members of class templates. That would make the following program ill-formed (but it probably should be well-formed):
struct B{ void f(int); };
template<class T> struct D: B { };
template<class T> void g() {
struct B{ void f(); };
struct A: D<T> {
B m;
};
A a;
a.m.f(); // Presumably, we want ::g()::B::f(), not ::B::f(int)
}
int main () {
g<int>();
return 0;
}
I suspect the wording should be something like
In the definition of a class template or a class defined (directly or indirectly) within the scope of a class template or function template, if a base class...
That should also include deeply nested classes in templates, local classes of non-template member functions of member classes of class templates, etc.
Proposed resolution (October, 2006):
Change 14.6.2 [temp.dep] paragraph 3 as follows:
In the definition of a class or class templateor a member of a class template, if a base classof the class templatedepends 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.
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. (See messages c++std-core-11131-43 for a fuller discussion of these concerns.)
Notes from the April, 2007 meeting:
The Evolution Working Group is now actively pursuing an extension that would allow local and/or nameless types to be used as template arguments, so this resolution will be held in abeyance until the outcome of that proposal is known.
(See reflector messages 11427-8.)
The last two sentences of 14.8.2 [temp.deduct] paragraph 5 read:
When all template arguments have been deduced or obtained from default template arguments, all uses of template parameters in non-deduced contexts are replaced with the corresponding deduced or default argument values. If the substitution results in an invalid type, as described above, type deduction fails.
Shouldn't the substitution occur for all uses of the parameters, so that any of them could result in deduction failure?
Proposed resolution (October, 2006):
Change 14.8.2 [temp.deduct] paragraph 5 as follows:
...When all template arguments have been deduced or obtained from default template arguments, all uses of template parameters innon-deduced contextsthe function type are replaced with the corresponding deduced or default argument values. If the substitution results in an invalid type, as described above, type deduction fails.
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.
Proposed resolution (October, 2006)
Change 15.1 [except.throw] paragraph 3 as indicated:
...The type of the throw-expression shall notIf the type of the exception object would be an incomplete type, or a pointer to an incomplete type other than (possibly cv-qualified) void the program is ill-formed...
According to 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 principal constructor (12.6.2 [class.base.init]) has completed execution and the destructor has not yet begun execution. Similarly, if the non-delegating constructor for an object has completed execution and a delegating constructor for that object exits with an exception, the object's destructor will be invoked. Should a constructor for an element of an automatic array throw an exception, only the constructed elements of that array will be destroyed.
The requirement for destruction of array elements explicitly applies only to automatic arrays, and one might conclude from the context that only automatic class objects are in view as well, although that is not explicitly stated. What about local static arrays and class objects? Are they intended also to be subject to the requirement that fully-constructed subobjects are to be destroyed?
Proposed resolution (October, 2006):
Change 15.2 [except.ctor] paragraph 2 as follows:
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 principal constructor (12.6.2 [class.base.init]) has completed execution and the destructor has not yet begun execution. Similarly, if the non-delegating constructor for an object has completed execution and a delegating constructor for that object exits with an exception, the object’s destructor will be invoked.Should a constructor for an element of an automatic array throw an exception, only the constructed elements of that array will be destroyed.If the object or array was allocated in a new-expression, the matching deallocation function (3.7.3.2 [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation], 5.3.4 [expr.new], 12.5 [class.free]), if any, is called to free the storage occupied by the object.
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.”
Proposed resolution (April, 2006):
Change 16.2 [cpp.include] paragraph 5 as indicated:
The implementation provides unique mappings between the delimited sequence and the external source file name for sequences consisting of one or more nondigits or digits (2.10 [lex.name]), optionally followed by a period (.) and a single nondigit...
(Clark Nelson will discuss this revision with WG14.)
Additional notes (October, 2006):
WG14 takes no position on this proposed change.
The execution requirements on a conforming implementation are described twice in the Standard, once in 1.9 [intro.execution] paragraphs 5-6 and again in paragraph 11. These descriptions differ in at least a couple of important ways:
The most significant discrepancy has to do with the way output is described. In paragraph 11, the least requirements are described in terms of data written at program termination, clearly allowing arbitrary buffering, whereas in paragraph 6, the observable behavior is described in terms of calls to I/O functions. For example, there are compilers which transform a call to printf with a single argument into a call to fputs. That's valid under paragraph 11, but not under paragraph 6.
Also, in paragraph 6, volatile accesses and I/O operations are included in a single sequence, suggesting that they are equally constrained by sequencing requirements, whereas in paragraph 11, they are clearly not.
There are also editorial discrepancies that should be cleaned up.
C99 and C++ differ in their approach to universal character names (UCNs).
Issue 248 already covers the differences in UCNs allowed for identifiers, but a more fundamental issue is that of UCNs that correspond to codes reserved by ISO 10676 for surrogate pair forms.
Specifically, C99 does not allow UCNs whose short names are in the range 0xD800 to 0xDFFF. I think C++ should have the same constraint. If someone really wants to place such a code in a character or string literal, they should use a hexadecimal escape sequence instead, for example:
wchar_t w1 = L'\xD900'; // Okay.
wchar_t w2 = L'\uD900'; // Error, not a valid character.
(Compare 6.4.3 paragraph 2 in ISO/IEC 9899/1999 with 2.2 [lex.charset] paragraph 2 in the C++ standard.)
WG14 accepted DR 279 regarding the rule known colloquially as the L'x'=='x' rule. This change was made to C99 in TC2. The Austin Group subsequently opened DR 321 against TC2, observing that the change made in TC2 would invalidate existing conforming C code that relied on the L'x'=='x' rule.
DR 321 is now closed and will be included in the TC3 to C99. This change defines a new standard macro, which WG14 drafted as follows:
__STDC_MB_MIGHT_NEQ_WC__: The integer constant 1, intended to indicate that there might be some character x in the basic character set, such that 'x' need not be equal to L'x'.
WG14 requests that WG21 adopt this revision and this macro in C++0x.
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.
(See also issue 189.)
From reflector message 8398.
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.
(See also issue 369, as well as reflector messages 11243-62.)
There are a number of specifications in the Standard that should also apply to references. For example:
3 [basic] paragraphs 3-4 indicate that a reference cannot have a name because it is not an entity. (See also issue 485.)
3.4.1 [basic.lookup.unqual] paragraph 13 covers unqualified lookup in the initializer of a variable member of a namespace but not that of a reference member of a namespace. It would be very strange if the lookup in these two cases were different.
3.5 [basic.link] paragraph 8 prohibits use of a type without linkage as the type of a variable with linkage, but not as the type of a reference with linkage. (References with linkage are explicitly mentioned earlier in the section.)
3.7.1 [basic.stc.static] paragraph 3 permits local static variables but not local static references.
A number of other examples could be cited. A thorough review is needed to make sure that references are completely specified.
(See reflector messages 11390-3.)
3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 1 says,
No translation unit shall contain more than one definition of any variable, function, class type, enumeration type or template.
This says nothing about references. Is it permitted to define a reference more than once in a single translation unit? (The list in paragraph 5 of things that can have definitions in multiple translation units does not include references.)
The Standard does not completely specify how to look up the type-name(s) in a pseudo-destructor-name (5.2 [expr.post] paragraph 1, 5.2.4 [expr.pseudo]), and what information it does have is incorrect and/or in the wrong place. Consider, for instance, 3.4.5 [basic.lookup.classref] paragraphs 2-3:
If the id-expression in a class member access (5.2.5 [expr.ref]) is an unqualified-id, and the type of the object expression is of a class type C (or of pointer to a class type C), the unqualified-id is looked up in the scope of class C. If the type of the object expression is of pointer to scalar type, the unqualified-id is looked up in the context of the complete postfix-expression.
If the unqualified-id is ~type-name, and the type of the object expression is of a class type C (or of pointer to a class type C), the type-name is looked up in the context of the entire postfix-expression and in the scope of class C. The type-name shall refer to a class-name. If type-name is found in both contexts, the name shall refer to the same class type. If the type of the object expression is of scalar type, the type-name is looked up in the scope of the complete postfix-expression.
There are at least three things wrong with this passage with respect to pseudo-destructors:
A pseudo-destructor call (5.2.4 [expr.pseudo]) is not a “class member access”, so the statements about scalar types in the object expressions are vacuous: the object expression in a class member access is required to be a class type or pointer to class type (5.2.5 [expr.ref] paragraph 2).
On a related note, the lookup for the type-name(s) in a pseudo-destructor name should not be described in a section entitled “Class member access.”
Although the class member access object expressions are carefully allowed to be either a class type or a pointer to a class type, paragraph 2 mentions only a “pointer to scalar type” (disallowing references) and paragraph 3 deals only with a “scalar type,” presumably disallowing pointers (although it could possibly be a very subtle way of referring to both non-class pointers and references to scalar types at once).
The other point at which lookup of pseudo-destructors is mentioned is 3.4.3 [basic.lookup.qual] paragraph 5:
If a pseudo-destructor-name (5.2.4 [expr.pseudo]) contains a nested-name-specifier, the type-names are looked up as types in the scope designated by the nested-name-specifier.
Again, this specification is in the wrong location (a pseudo-destructor-name is not a qualified-id and thus should not be treated in the “Qualified name lookup” section).
Finally, there is no place in the Standard that describes the lookup for pseudo-destructor calls of the form p->T::~T() and r.T::~T(), where p and r are a pointer and reference to scalar, respectively. To the extent that it gives any guidance at all, 3.4.5 [basic.lookup.classref] deals only with the case where the ~ immediately follows the . or ->, and 3.4.3 [basic.lookup.qual] deals only with the case where the pseudo-destructor-name contains a nested-name-specifier that designates a scope in which names can be looked up.
See document J16/06-0008 = WG21 N1938 for further discussion of this and related issues, including 244, 305, 399, and 414.
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>
};
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.
The resolution of issue 33 added the following wording in 3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep]:
In addition, if the argument is the name or address of a set of overloaded functions and/or function templates, its associated classes and namespaces are the union of those associated with each of the members of the set: the namespace in which the function or function template is defined and the classes and namespaces associated with its (non-dependent) parameter types and return type.
This wording is self-contradictory: although it claims that the treatment of overload sets is intended to be “the union of those associated with each of the members of the set,” it says that the namespace of which each function or function template is a member is to be considered an associated namespace. That is different from the case of a non-overloaded function argument; in that case, because only the type of the argument is considered, the namespace of which the function is a member is not an associated namespace. This should be rectified so that overloaded and unoverloaded functions really are treated the same.
From reflector messages 8274, 8308, and 8311-13.
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.
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]
Notes frum the April 2006 meeting:
According to 3.5 [basic.link] paragraph 9, the two variables with linkage in the proposed example are not “the same entity” because they do not have the same linkage. Some other formulation will be needed to describe the relationship between those two variables.
Notes from the October 2006 meeting:
The CWG decided that it would be better to make a program with this kind of linkage mismatch ill-formed instead of having undefined behavior.
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 reflector messages 10948, 10951, 10963, 10966-7, 10969, 10970-83, 10985-6, and 10989.) 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.
Notes from the April, 2006 meeting:
The CWG agreed that the restriction in 3.5 [basic.link] paragraph 8 on use of a type without linkage should apply only to variables and functions with external linkage, not to variables and functions with internal linkage (i.e., the example should be accepted). This is a separate issue from the question before the EWG and should be resolved independently.
Additional note (April, 2006):
Even the restriction of the rule to functions and objects with external linkage may not be exactly what we want. Consider an example like:
namespace {
struct { int i; } s;
}
The variable s has external linkage but can't be named outside its translation unit, so there's again no reason to prohibit use of a type without linkage in its declaration.
(See reflector message 11387.)
According to 3.5 [basic.link] paragraph 3,
A name having namespace scope (3.3.5 [basic.scope.namespace]) has internal linkage if it is the name of
an object, reference, function or function template that is explicitly declared static or,
an object or reference that is explicitly declared const and neither explicitly declared extern nor previously declared to have external linkage;
It is not possible to declare a reference to be const.
In ISO/IEC 14882:2003, the second bullet of 3.8 [basic.life] paragraph 1 reads,
if T is a class type with a non-trivial constructor (12.1 [class.ctor]), the constructor call has completed.
Issue 119 pointed out that aggregate initialization can be used with some classes with a non-trivial implicitly-declared default constructor, and that in such cases there is no call to the object's constructor. The resolution for that issue was to change the previously-cited wording to read,
If T is a class type with a non-trivial constructor (12.1 [class.ctor], the initialization is complete.
Later (but before the WP was revised with the wording from the resolution of issue 119), issue 404 changed the 2003 wording to read,
If T is a class type and the constructor invoked to create the object is non-trivial (12.1 [class.ctor]), the constructor call has completed.
thus reversing the effect of issue 119, whose whole purpose was to cover objects with non-trivial constructors that are not invoked.
Through an editorial error, the post-Redmond draft (N1905) still contained the original 2003 wording that should have been replaced by the resolution of issue 119, in addition to the new wording from the resolution:
if T is a class type and the constructor invoked to create the object is non-trivial (12.1 [class.ctor]), the constructor call has completed. the initialization is complete.
Finally, during the application of the edits for delegating constructors (N1986), this editing error was “fixed” by retaining the original 2003 wording (which was needed for the application of the change specified in N1986), so that the current draft (N2009) reads,
if T is a class type and the constructor invoked to create the object is non-trivial (12.1 [class.ctor]), the principal constructor call 12.6.2 [class.base.init]) has completed.
Because the completion of the call to the principal constructor corresponds to the point at which the object is “fully constructed” (15.2 [except.ctor] paragraph 2), i.e., its initialization is complete, I believe that the exact wording of the issue 119 resolution would be correct and should be restored verbatim.
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.
(From messages 11852-7 and 11860-2.)
Is the following example well-formed?
struct S {
static char a[5];
};
char S::a[]; // Unspecified bound in definition
3.5 [basic.link] paragraph 10 certainly makes allowance for declarations to differ in the presence or absence of a major array bound. However, 3.1 [basic.def] paragraph 5 says that
A program is ill-formed if the definition of any object gives the object an incomplete type (3.9 [basic.types]).
3.9 [basic.types] paragraph 7 says,
The declared type of an array object might be an array of unknown size and therefore be incomplete at one point in a translation unit and complete later on; the array types at those two points (“array of unknown bound of T” and “array of N T”) are different types.
This wording appears to make no allowance for the C concept of “composite type;” instead, each declaration is said to have its own type. By this interpretation, the example is ill-formed, because the type declared by the definition of S::a is incomplete.
If the example is intended to be well-formed, the Standard needs explicit wording stating that an omitted array bound in a declaration is implicitly taken from that of a visible declaration of that object, if any.
Notes from the April, 2007 meeting:
The CWG agreed that this usage should be permitted.
(From messages 12105-6, 12110, 12114-5, 12117, 12125, 12129, 12131, 12135, 12138, 12142-3, 12147, and 12149.)
The aliasing rules given in 3.10 [basic.lval] paragraph 10 rely on the concept of “dynamic type.” The problem is that the dynamic type of an object often cannot be determined (or even sufficiently constrained) at the point at which an optimizer needs to be able to determine whether aliasing might occur or not. For example, consider the function
void foo(int* p, double* q) {
*p = 42;
*q = 3.14;
}
An optimizer, on the basis of the existing aliasing rules, might decide that an int* and a double* cannot refer to the same object and reorder the assignments. This reordering, however, could result in undefined behavior if the function foo is called as follows:
void goo() {
union {
int i;
double d;
} t;
t.i = 12;
foo(&t.i, &t.d);
cout << t.d << endl;
};
Here, the reference to t.d after the call to foo will be valid only if the assignments in foo are executed in the order in which they were written; otherwise, the union will contain an int object rather than a double.
One possibility would be to require that if such aliasing occurs, it be done only via member names and not via pointers.
Notes from the July, 2007 meeting:
This is the same issue as C's DR236. The CWG expressed a desire to address the issue the same way C99 does. The issue also occurs in C++ when placement new is used to end the lifetime of one object and start the lifetime of a different object occupying the same storage.
(From messages 11829-30.)
According to 4.1 [conv.lval] paragraph 1, applying the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion to any uninitialized object results in undefined behavior. However, character types are intended to allow any data, including uninitialized objects and padding, to be copied (hence the statements in 3.9.1 [basic.fundamental] paragraph 1 that “For character types, all bits of the object representation participate in the value representation” and in 3.10 [basic.lval] paragraph 15 that char and unsigned char types can alias any object). The lvalue-to-rvalue conversion should be permitted on uninitialized objects of character type without evoking undefined behavior.
From reflector messages 8324 and 8343.
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.)
From messages 8395, 8826-32, 8834, 8837, 8840-43, 8845, 8847, and 9297.
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.
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].
(From messages 12156, 12158-9, 12166, 12168-73, 12175-7, and 12179.)
Issue 506 changed passing a non-POD class type to an ellipsis from undefined behavior to conditionally-supported behavior. As a result, an implementation could conceivably reject code like the following:
struct two {char _[2];};
template <class From, class To>
struct is_convertible
{
private:
static From f;
template <class U> static char test(const U&);
template <class U> static two test(...);
public:
static const bool value = sizeof(test<To>(f)) == 1;
};
struct A
{
A();
};
int main()
{
const bool b = is_convertible<A,int>::value; // b == false
}
This technique has become popular in template metaprogramming, and no non-POD object is actually passed at runtime. Concepts will eliminate much (perhaps not all) of the need for this kind of programming, but legacy code will persist.
Perhaps this technique should be officially supported by allowing implementations to reject passing a non-POD type to ellipsis only if it appears in a potentially-evaluated expression?
Notes from the July, 2007 meeting:
The CWG agreed with the suggestion to allow such calls in unevaluated contexts.
The resolution to issue 195 makes “converting a pointer to a function into a pointer to an object type or vice versa” conditionally-supported behavior. In doing so, however, it overlooked the fact that void is not an “object type” (3.9 [basic.types] paragraph 9). The wording should be amended to allow conversion to and from void* types.
See messages 8740-61.
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 (18.6.3 [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 requirements for the operand of the delete operators are given in 5.3.5 [expr.delete] paragraph 2:
In either alternative, the value of the operand of delete may be a null pointer value. If it is not a null pointer value, in the first alternative (delete object), the value of the operand of delete shall be a pointer to a non-array object or a pointer to a subobject (1.8 [intro.object]) representing a base class of such an object (clause 10 [class.derived]). If not, the behavior is undefined. In the second alternative (delete array), the value of the operand of delete shall be the pointer value which resulted from a previous array new-expression. If not, the behavior is undefined.
There are no restrictions on the type of a null pointer, only on a pointer that is not null. That seems wrong.
(From reflector messages 11447-52.)
Consider the following example:
template <typename T>
const T* f(bool b) {
static T t1 = T();
static const T t2 = T();
return &(b ? t1 : t2); // error?
}
According to 5.16 [expr.cond], this function is well-formed if T is a class type and ill-formed otherwise. If the second and third operands of a conditional expression are lvalues of the same class type except for cv-qualification, the result of the conditional expression is an lvalue; if they are lvalues of the same non-class type except for cv-qualification, the result is an rvalue.
This difference seems gratuitous and should be removed.
There appear to be two different specifications for when aliasing is permitted. One is in 3.10 [basic.lval] paragraph 15:
If a program attempts to access the stored value of an object through an lvalue of other than one of the following types the behavior is undefined
the dynamic type of the object,
a cv-qualified version of the dynamic type of the object,
a type similar (as defined in 4.4 [conv.qual]) to the dynamic type of the object,
a type that is the signed or unsigned type corresponding to the dynamic type of the object,
a type that is the signed or unsigned type corresponding to a cv-qualified version of the dynamic type of the object,
an aggregate or union type that includes one of the aforementioned types among its members (including, recursively, a member of a subaggregate or contained union),
a type that is a (possibly cv-qualified) base class type of the dynamic type of the object,
a char or unsigned char type.
There is also a much more restrictive specification in 5.17 [expr.ass] paragraph 8:
If the value being stored in an object is accessed from another object that overlaps in any way the storage of the first object, then the overlap shall be exact and the two objects shall have the same type, otherwise the behavior is undefined.
This affects, for example, the definedness of operations on union members: when may a value be stored into one union member and accessed via another.
It should be noted that this conflict existed in C90 and is unchanged in C99 (see, for example, section 6.5 paragraph 7 and section 6.5.16.1 paragraph 3 of ISO/IEC 9899:1999, which directly parallel the sections cited above).
Notes from the October, 2006 meeting:
This issue is based on a misunderstanding of the intent of the wording in 5.17 [expr.ass] paragraph 8. Instead of being a general statement about aliasing, it's describing the situation in which the source of the value being assigned is storage that overlaps the storage of the target object. The proposed resolution should make that clearer rather than changing the specification.
I've seen some pieces of code recently that put complex expressions involving overload resolution inside sizeof operations in constant expressions in templates.
5.19 [expr.const] paragraph 1 implies that some kinds of nonconstant expressions are allowed inside a sizeof in a constant expression, but it's not clear that this was intended to extend all the way to things like overload resolution. Allowing such things has some hidden costs. For example, name mangling has to be able to represent all operators, including calls, and not just the operators that can appear in constant expressions.
template <int I> struct A {};
char xxx(int);
char xxx(float);
template <class T> A<sizeof(xxx((T)0))> f(T){}
int main()
{
f(1);
}
If complex expressions are indeed allowed, it should be because of an explicit committee decision rather than because of some looseness in this section of the standard.
Notes from the 4/02 meeting:
Any argument for restricting such expressions must involve a cost/benefit ratio: a restriction would be palatable only if it causes minimum hardship for users and allows a substantial reduction in implementation cost. If we propose a restriction, it must be one that library writers can live with.
Lots of these cases fail with current compilers, so there can't be a lot of existing code using them. We plan to find out what cases there are in libraries like Loki and Boost.
We noted that in many cases one can move the code into a class to get the same result. The implementation problem comes up when the expression-in-sizeof is in a template deduction context or part of a template signature. The problem cases are ones where an error causes deduction to fail, as opposed to contexts where an error causes a diagnostic. The latter contexts are easier to handle; however, there are situations where "fail deduction" may be the desired behavior.
Notes from the April 2003 meeting:
Here is a better example:
extern "C" int printf(const char *, ...);
char f(int);
int f(...);
// Approach 1 -- overload resolution in template class
// No problem
template <class T> struct conv_int {
static const bool value = (sizeof(f(T())) == 1);
};
// Approach 2 -- overload resolution in type deduction
// Difficult
template <int I> struct A {
static const int value = I;
};
template <class T> bool conv_int2(A<sizeof(f(T()))> p) {
return p.value == 1;
}
template<typename T>
A<sizeof(f(T()))> make_A() {
return A<sizeof(f(T()))>();
}
int main() {
printf("short: %d\n", conv_int<short>::value);
printf("int *: %d\n", conv_int<int *>::value);
printf("short: %d\n", conv_int2<short>(make_A<short>()));
printf("int *: %d\n", conv_int2<int *>(make_A<int*>()));
}
The core working group liked the idea of a restriction that says that expressions inside sizeof in template signature contexts must be otherwise valid as nontype template argument expressions (i.e., integer operations only, limited casts). This of course is subject to whether users can live with that restriction. This topic was brought up in full committee, but there was limited feedback from other groups.
It was also noted that if typeof (whatever it is called) is added, there may be a similar issue there.
Note (March, 2005):
(See reflector messages 10758-9.)
Dave Abrahams (quoting a Usenet posting by Vladimir Marko): The decltype and auto proposal (revision 3: N1607) presents
template <class T,class U>
decltype((*(T*)0)+(*(U*)0)) add(const T& t,const U& u);
as a valid declaration (if the proposal is accepted). If [the restrictions in the April, 2003 note] really applied to decltype, the declaration above would be invalid. AFAICT every non-trivial use of decltype in a template function declaration would be invalid. And for me this would render my favorite proposal useless.
I would propose to allow any kind of expression inside sizeof (and decltype) and explicitly add sizeof (and decltype) expressions involving template-parameters to non-deduced contexts (add a bullet to 14.8.2.4 [temp.deduct.partial] paragraph 4).
Jaakko Jarvi: Just reinforcing that this is important and hope for insights. The topic is discussed a bit on page 10 of the latest revision of the proposal (N1705). Here's a quote from the proposal:
However, it is crucial that no restrictions are placed on what kinds of expressions are allowed inside decltype, and therefore also inside sizeof. We suggest that issue 339 is resolved to require the compiler to fail deduction (apply the SFINAE principle), and not produce an error, for as large set of invalid expressions in operands of sizeof or decltype as is possible to comfortably implement. We wish that implementors aid in classifying the kinds of expressions that should produce errors, and the kinds that should lead to failure of deduction.
Notes from the April, 2007 meeting:
The CWG is pursuing a compromise proposal, to which the EWG has tentatively agreed, which would allow arbitrary expressions in the return types of function templates but which would restrict the expressions that participate in the function signature (and thus in overload resolution) to those that can be used as non-type template arguments. During deduction and overload resolution, these complex return types would be ignored; that is, there would be no substitution of the deduced template arguments into the return type at this point. If such a function were selected by overload resolution, however, a substitution failure in the return type would produce a diagnostic rather than a deduction failure.
This approach works when doing overload resolution in the context of a function call, but additional tricks (still being defined) are needed in other contexts such as friend function declaration matching and taking the address of a function, in which the return type does play a part.
Notes from the July, 2007 meeting:
The problem is whether arbitrary expressions (for example, ones that include overload resolution) are allowed in template deduction contexts, and, if so, which expression errors are SFINAE failures and which are hard errors.
This issue deals with arbitrary expressions inside sizeof in deduction contexts. That's a fringe case right now (most compilers don't accept them). decltype makes the problem worse, because the standard use case is one that involves overload resolution. Generalized constant expressions make it worse yet, because they allow overload resolution and class types to show up in any constant expression in a deduction context.
Why is this an issue? Why don't we just say everything is allowed and be done with it?
At the April, 2007 meeting, we were headed toward a solution that imposed a restriction on expressions in deduction contexts, but such a restriction seems to really hamper uses of constexpr functions. So we're now proposing that fully general expressions be allowed, and that most errors in such expressions be treated as SFINAE failures rather than errors.
One issue with writing Standard wording for that is how to define “most.” There's a continuum of errors, some errors being clearly SFINAE failures, and some clearly “real” errors, with lots of unclear cases in between. We decided it's easier to write the definition by listing the errors that are not treated as SFINAE failures, and the list we came up with is as follows:
Everything else produces a SFINAE failure rather than a hard error.
There was broad consensus that this felt like a good solution, but that feeling was mixed with trepidation on several fronts:
We will be producing wording for the Working Draft for the October, 2007 meeting.
Consider:
template <int* p> struct S {
static const int I = 3;
};
int i;
int a[S<&i>::I];
Clearly this should be valid, but a pedantic reading of 5.19 [expr.const] would suggest that this is invalid because “&i” is not permitted in integral constant expressions.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change the last sentence of 5.19 [expr.const] paragraph 1 as indicated:
In particular, except in non-type template-arguments or sizeof expressions, functions, class objects, pointers, or references shall not be used, and assignment, increment, decrement, function-call, or comma operators shall not be used.
(Note: the same text is changed by the resolution of issue 367.)
Notes from April, 2006 meeting:
The proposed resolution could potentially be read as saying that the prohibited operations and operators would be permitted in integral constant expressions that are non-type template-arguments. John Spicer is investigating an alternate approach, to say that expressions in non-type template arguments are not part of the expression in which the template-id appears (in contrast to the operand of sizeof, which is part of the containing expression).
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." Steve Adamczyk will investigate.
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 3.3.8 [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):
See reflector messages 10712-17, 10719, 10721-23, 10725, and 10733-34.
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.
7.1.3 [dcl.typedef] paragraph 1 says,
The typedef specifier shall not be used in a function-definition (8.4 [dcl.fct.def])...
Does this mean that the following is ill-formed?
void f() {
typedef int INT;
}
(From messages 11984-12039.)
We've found an interesting parsing ambiguity with the new meaning of auto. Consider:
typedef int T;
void f() {
auto T = 42; // Valid or not?
}
The question here is whether T should be a type specifier or a storage class? 7.1.6.4 [dcl.spec.auto] paragraph 1 says,
The auto type-specifier has two meanings depending on the context of its use. In a decl-specifier-seq that contains at least one type-specifier (in addition to auto) that is not a cv-qualifier, the auto type-specifier specifies that the object named in the declaration has automatic storage duration.
In this case, T is a type-specifier, so the declaration is ill-formed: there is no declarator-id. Many, however, would like to see auto work “just like int,” i.e., forcing T to be redeclared in the inner scope. Concerns cited included hijacking of the name in templates and inline function bodies over the course of time if a program revision introduces a type with that name in the surrounding context. Although it was pointed out that enclosing the name in parentheses in the inner declaration would prevent any such problems, this was viewed as unacceptably ugly.
Notes from the April, 2007 meeting:
The CWG wanted to avoid a rule like, “if auto can be a type-specifier, it is” (similar to the existing “if it can be a declaration, it is” rule) because of the lookahead and backtracking difficulties such an approach would pose for certain kinds of parsing techniques. It was noted that the difficult lookahead cases all involve parentheses, which would not be a problem if only the “=” form of initializer were permitted in auto declarations; only very limited lookahead is required in that case. It was also pointed out that the “if it can be a type-specifier, it is” approach results in a quiet change of meaning for cases like
typedef int T;
int n = 3;
void f() {
auto T(n);
}
This currently declares n to be an int variable in the inner scope but would, under the full lookahead approach, declare T to be a variable, quitely changing uses of n inside f() to refer to the outer variable.
The consensus of the CWG was to pursue the change to require the “=” form of initializer for auto.
Notes from the July, 2007 meeting:
See paper J16/07-0197 = WG21 N2337. There was no consensus among the CWG for either of the approaches recommended in the paper; additional input and direction is required.
According to 7.2 [dcl.enum] paragraph 6, the underlying type of an enumeration with an empty enumeration-list is determined as if the enumeration-list contained a single enumerator with value 0. Paragraph 7, which specifies the values of an enumeration and the minimum size of bit-field needed represent those values needs a similar provision for empty enumeration-lists.
From reflector messages 8206-8213, initiated via a message to comp.std.c++.
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.)
Mike Miller and John Spicer will write a paper for the October, 2000 meeting with proposed wording to implement the recommendations of the preceding paper.
From message 9488.
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;
}
The wording of 7.5 [dcl.link] paragraph 5 is suspect:
If two declarations of the same function or object specify different linkage-specifications (that is, the linkage-specifications of these declarations specify different string-literals), the program is ill-formed if the declarations appear in the same translation unit, and the one definition rule (3.2) applies if the declarations appear in different translation units.
But what if only one of the declarations has a linkage-specification, while the other is left with the default C++ linkage? Shouldn't this restriction be phrased in terms of the functions’ or objects’ language linkage rather than linkage-specifications?
(Additional note [wmm]: Is the ODR the proper vehicle for enforcing this requirement? This is dealing with declarations, not necessarily definitions. Shouldn't this say “ill-formed, no diagnostic required” instead of some vague reference to the ODR?)
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.
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]
Note (February, 2006):
The word “use” in the last paragraph of the proposed resolution was intended to refer to the description in 3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 2. However, that section does not define what it means for a reference to be “used,” dealing only with objects and functions. Additional drafting is required to extend 3.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 2 to apply to references. (See message 11163 for additional details.)
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.
(See messages c++std-core-11091-2 and 11100.)
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.
Notes from the April, 2006 meeting:
During the meeting the CWG was of the opinion that the “R() const” specialization would not match the const member function even if it were allowed and so classified the issue as NAD. Questions have been raised since the meeting, however, suggesting that the template argument in the partial specialization would, in fact, match the type of a const member function (see, for example, the very similar usage via typedefs in 9.3 [class.mfct] paragraph 9). The issue is thus being left open for renewed discussion at the next meeting.
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.
Notes from April, 2006 meeting:
There was some concern about whether this wording covered (or needed to cover) cases where an object is “partially constructed.” Another approach might be simply to define value initialization to be “construction.” Returned to “drafting” status for further investigation.
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]).
Notes from the April, 2006 meeting:
The approach favored by the CWG was to leave 3.2 [basic.def.odr] unchanged and to add normative wording to 8.5 [dcl.init] indicating that it is unspecified whether the default constructor is called.
Notes from the October, 2006 meeting:
The CWG now prefers that it should not be left unspecified whether programs of this sort are well- or ill-formed; instead, the Standard should require that the default constructor be defined in such cases. Three possibilities of implementing this decision were discussed:
Change 3.2 [basic.def.odr] to state flatly that the default constructor is used by value initialization (removing the implication that 8.5 [dcl.init] determines the conditions under which it is used).
Change 8.5 [dcl.init] to specify that non-union class objects with no user-declared constructor are value-initialized by first zero-initializing the object and then calling the (implicitly-defined) default constructor, replacing the current specification of value-initializing each of its sub-objects.
Add a normative statement to 8.5 [dcl.init] that value-initialization causes the implicitly-declared default constructor to be implicitly defined, even if it is not called.
8.5 [dcl.init] paragraph 2 reads,
Automatic, register, static, and external variables of namespace scope can be initialized by arbitrary expressions involving literals and previously declared variables and functions.
Both “automatic” and “static” are used to describe storage durations, “register” is a storage class specifier which indicates the object has automatic storage duration, “external” describes linkage, and “namespace scope” is a kind of scope. Automatic, register, static and external, together with namespace scope, are used to restrict the “variables.”
Register objects are only a sub-set of automatic objects and thus the word “register” is redundant and should be elided. If register objects are to be emphasized, they should be mentioned like “Automatic (including register)...”
Variables having namespace scope can never be automatic; they can only be static, with either external or internal linkage. Therefore, there are in fact no “automatic variables of namespace scope,” and the “static” in “static variables of namespace scope” is useless.
In fact, automatic and static variables already compose all variables with either external linkage or not, and thus the “external*#8221; becomes redundant, too, and the quoted sentence seems to mean that all variables of namespace scope can be initialized by arbitrary expressions. But this is not true because not all internal variables of namespace scope can. Therefore, the restrictive “external” is really necessary, not redundant.
As a result, the erroneous restrictive “automatic, register, static” should be removed and the quoted sentence may be changed to:
External variables of namespace scope can be initialized by arbitrary expressions involving literals and previously declared variables and functions.
Notes from the April, 2007 meeting:
This sentence is poorly worded, but the analysis given in the issue description is incorrect. The intent is simply that the storage class of a variable places no restrictions on the kind of expression that can be used to initialize it (in contrast to C, where variables of static storage duration can only be initialized by constant expressions).
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.
According to 10.3 [class.virtual] paragraph 2:
Then in any well-formed class, for each virtual function declared in that class or any of its direct or indirect base classes there is a unique final overrider that overrides that function and every other overrider of that function. The rules for member lookup (10.2 [class.member.lookup]) are used to determine the final overrider for a virtual function in the scope of a derived class but ignoring names introduced by using-declarations.
I think that description is wrong on at least a couple of counts. First, consider the following example:
struct A { virtual void f(); };
struct B: A { };
struct C: A { void f(); };
struct D: B, C { };
What is the “unique final overrider” of A::f() in D? According to 10.3 [class.virtual] paragraph 2, we determine that by looking up f in D using the lookup rules in 10.2 [class.member.lookup]. However, that lookup determines that f in D is ambiguous, so there is no “unique final overrider” of A::f() in D. Consequently, because “any well-formed class” must have such an overrider, D must be ill-formed.
Of course, we all know that D is not ill-formed. In fact, 10.2 [class.member.lookup] paragraph 10 contains an example that illustrates exactly this point:
struct A { virtual void f(); }; struct B1 : A { // note non-virtual derivation void f(); }; struct B2 : A { void f(); }; struct D : B1, B2 { // D has two separate A subobjects };In class D above there are two occurrences of class A and hence two occurrences of the virtual member function A::f. The final overrider of B1::A::f is B1::f and the final overrider of B2::A::f is B2::f.
It appears that the requirement for a “unique final overrider” in 10.3 [class.virtual] paragraph 2 needs to say something about sub-objects. Whatever that “something” is, you can't just say “look up the name in the derived class using 10.2 [class.member.lookup].”
There's another problem with using the 10.2 [class.member.lookup] lookup to specify the final overrider: name lookup just looks up the name, while the overriding relationship is based not only on the name but on a matching parameter-type-list and cv-qualification. To illustrate this point:
struct X {
virtual void f();
};
struct Y: X {
void f(int);
};
struct Z: Y { };
What is the “unique final overrider” of X::f() in A? Again, 10.3 [class.virtual] paragraph 2 says you're supposed to look up f in Z to find it; however, what you find is Y::f(int), not X::f(), and that's clearly wrong.
The resolution of issue 372 leaves unclear whether the following are well-formed or not:
class C {
typedef int I; // private
template <int> struct X;
template <int> friend struct Y;
}
template <C::I> struct C::X { }; // C::I accessible to member?
template <C::I> struct Y { }; // C::I accessible to friend?
Presumably the answer to both questions is “yes,”, but the new wording does not address template-parameters.
(From reflector message 11454.)
After the adoption of the wording for extended friend declarations, we now have this new paragraph in 11.4 [class.friend]:
A friend declaration that does not declare a function shall have one of the following forms:
friend elaborated-type-specifier ;
friend simple-type-specifier ;
friend typename-specifier ;
But what about friend class templates? Should the following examples compile in C++0x?
template< template <class> class T >
struct A{ friend T; };
template< class > struct C;
struct B{ friend C; };
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].
See also reflector message 10655.
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 in message 9859 :
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.
According to 13.3.1.3 [over.match.ctor],
When objects of class type are direct-initialized (8.5 [dcl.init]), or copy-initialized from an expression of the same or a derived class type (8.5 [dcl.init])... [the] argument list is the expression-list within the parentheses of the initializer.
However, in copy initialization (using the “=” notation), there need be no parentheses. What is the argument list in that case?
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). Steve Adamczyk will investigate.
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.
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. John Spicer will revise his paper and proposal in light of the discussion.
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.
From messages 10103-10104.
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.
From messages 9860, 9868.
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.
Note (June, 2006):
Mark Mitchell suggested the following example:
template <int> void g();
template <typename T>
struct S {
static int i[];
void f();
};
template <typename T>
int S<T>::i[] = { 1 };
template <typename T>
void S<T>::f() {
g<sizeof (i) / sizeof (int)>();
}
template <typename T>
int S<int>::i[] = { 1, 2 };
Which g is called from S<int>::f()?
If the program is valid, then surely one would expect g<2> to be called.
If the program is valid, does S<T>::i have a non-dependent type in S<T>::f? If so, is it incomplete, or is it int[1]? (Here, int[1] would be surprising, since S<int>::i actually has type int[2].)
If the program is invalid, why?
For a simpler example, consider:
template <typename T>
struct S {
static int i[];
const int N = sizeof (i);
};
This is only valid if the type of i is dependent, meaning that the sizeof expression isn't evaluated until the class is instantiated.
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?
Notes from the April, 2006 meeting:
It was noted that there are similar issues for constructors and conversion operators with non-deducible parameters, and that they should probably be dealt with similarly.
(From reflector messages 11002-3.)
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.
Notes from the April, 2006 meeting:
The group favored option 2.
Consider the following example:
template <class T> struct Outer {
struct Inner {
Inner* self();
};
};
template <class T> Outer<T>::Inner*
Outer<T>::Inner::self() { return this; }
According to 14.6 [temp.res] paragraph 3 (before the salient wording was inadvertently removed, see issue 559),
A qualified-id that refers to a type and in which the nested-name-specifier depends on a template-parameter (14.6.2 [temp.dep]) but does not refer to a member of the current instantiation (14.6.2.1 [temp.dep.type]) shall be prefixed by the keyword typename to indicate that the qualified-id denotes a type, forming a typename-specifier.
Because Outer<T>::Inner is a member of the current instantiation, the Standard does not currently require that it be prefixed with typename when it is used in the return type of the definition of the self() member function. However, it is difficult to parse this definition correctly without knowing that the return type is, in fact, a type, which is what the typename keyword is for. Should the Standard be changed to require typename in such contexts?
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 complete thread includes the following messages on the core reflector: 10312-10338, 10340-10348, 10350-10354, 10356-10376
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.
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.
(Previously numbered 737.)
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.
John Spicer will propose a clarification.
From messages 9163-70. The discussion did not appear to have concluded at the time of this writing, so additional messages may deal with this topic.
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.
According to 14.6.4.2 [temp.dep.candidate],
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.
It is not at all clear why a call using a template-id would be treated differently from one not using a template-id. Furthermore, is it really necessary to exclude internal linkage functions from the lookup? Doesn't the ODR give implementations sufficient latitude to handle this case without another wrinkle on name lookup?
(See also issue 524.)
Notes from the April, 2006 meeting:
The consensus of the group was that template-ids should not be treated differently from unqualified-ids (although it's not clear how argument-dependent lookup works for template-ids), and that internal-linkage functions should be found by the lookup (although they may result in errors if selected by overload resolution).
Note (June, 2006):
Although the notes from the Berlin meeting indicate that argument-dependent lookup for template-ids is under-specified in the Standard, further examination indicates that that is not the case: the note in 14.8.1 [temp.arg.explicit] paragraph 8 clearly indicates that argument-dependent lookup is to be performed for template-ids, and 3.4.2 [basic.lookup.argdep] paragraph 4 describes the lookup performed:
When considering an associated namespace, the lookup is the same as the lookup performed when the associated namespace is used as a qualifier (3.4.3.2 [namespace.qual]) except that:
Any using-directives in the associated namespace are ignored.
Any namespace-scope friend functions declared in associated classes are visible within their respective namespaces even if they are not visible during an ordinary lookup (11.4 [class.friend]).
From reflector messages 8580-94 and 8601.
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".
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.
Notes from the April, 2006 meeting:
In forwarding document J16/06-0057 = WG21 N1987 to be approved by the full Committee, the CWG reaffirmed its position that explicitly instantiating a class template only explicitly instantiates those of its members that have been defined before the point of the explicit instantiation. The effect of the position advocated above would be to require all non-exported member functions to be defined in the translation unit in which the class template is explicitly instantiated (cf paragraph 4), and we did not want to require that. We did agree that the “visible” terminology should be replaced by wording along the lines of “has been defined.”
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.
Notes from the April, 2006 meeting:
The CWG favored completely disallowing the inline keyword in explicit instantiation directives.
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:...
Notes from the April, 2006 meeting:
The revised wording describing “unspecialized” templates needs more work to ensure that the parameter names in the template-id are in the correct order; the distinction between template argyments and parameters is also probably not clear enough. It might be better to replace this paragraph completely and avoid the “unspecialized” wording altogether.
(From messages 11674, 11677, 11679-80, 11682, 11684-5, 11687, and 11689-92.)
Given
template <class T> static T f(T t) { ... }
template <> int f(int t) { ... }
what is the linkage of f(int)?
Section 14 [temp] paragraph 4 says,
Entities generated from a template with internal linkage are distinct from all entities generated in other translation units.
But is the explicit specialization “generated from” the primary template? Does it inherit the local linkage? If so, where do I find a reference saying so explicitly?
James Widman: Data points: EDG 3.8 inherits, GCC 4.0 does not.
Mike Miller: There's a pretty strong presumption that the linkage of an explicit specialization cannot be different from that of its primary template, given that storage class specifiers cannot appear in an explicit specialization (7.1.1 [dcl.stc] paragraph 1).
Notes from the April, 2007 meeting:
The CWG agreed that the linkage of an explicit specialization must be that of the template. Gabriel dos Reis will investigate the reason for the different behavior of g++.
(From messages 11858-9.)
It does not appear that the following example is well-formed, although most compilers accept it:
template <typename T> T foo();
template <> int foo();
The reason is that 14.7.3 [temp.expl.spec] paragraph 11 only allows trailing template-arguments to be omitted if they “can be deduced from the function argument type,” and there are no function arguments in this example.
14.7.3 [temp.expl.spec] should probably say “function type” instead of “function argument type.” Also, a subsection should probably be added to 14.8.2 [temp.deduct] to cover “Deducing template arguments from declarative contexts” or some such. It would be essentially the same as 14.8.2.2 [temp.deduct.funcaddr] except that the function type from the declaration would be used as the type of P.
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.
(From reflector messages 11457-8.)
Issue 226 removed the original prohibition on default template-arguments for function templates. However, the note in 14.8.2.5 [temp.deduct.type] paragraph 19 still reflects that prohibition. It should be revised or removed.
From messages 10643-7 and 10649-52. 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 (18.7.4 [uncaught]).
Change 18.7.4 [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 (in reflector message 10767) 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. Mike Miller will post a reflector message summarizing the discussion to date and asking for comments.
Notes from the April, 2006 meeting:
The CWG agreed with the position that std::uncaught_exception() should return false during the copy to the exception object and that std::terminate() should not be called if that constructor exits with an exception. The issue was returned to “drafting” status for rewording to reflect this position.
Additional notes (September, 2007):
Although this issue deals primarily with when std::uncaught_exception() begins to return true, the specification of when it begins to return false is also problematic. There are two parallel sections that define the meaning of std::uncaught_exception() and each has a different problem. 15.5.3 [except.uncaught] reads,
The function std::uncaught_exception() returns true after completing evaluation of the object to be thrown until completing the initialization of the exception-declaration in the matching handler (18.7.4 [uncaught]).
The problem here is that whether an exception is considered caught (the underlying condition tested by the function) is here presented in terms of having initialized the exception-declaration, while in other places it is specified by having an active handler for the exception, e.g., 15.1 [except.throw] paragraph 6:
An exception is considered caught when a handler for that exception becomes active (15.3 [except.handle]).
This distinction is important because of 15.3 [except.handle] paragraph 3:
A handler is considered active when initialization is complete for the formal parameter (if any) of the catch clause. [Note: the stack will have been unwound at that point. —end note] Also, an implicit handler is considered active when std::terminate() or std::unexpected() is entered due to a throw.
Note that there is no exception-declaration to be initialized for the std::terminate() and std::unexpected() cases; nevertheless, according to 18.7.4 [uncaught], std::uncaught_exception() is supposed to return false when one of those two functions is entered.
The specification in 18.7.4 [uncaught] is not well phrased, however, and is open to misinterpretation. It reads,
Returns: true after completing evaluation 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().
The problem here is lack of parallelism: does “after entering terminate” refer to the condition for returning true or false? This would be better phrased along the lines of
Returns: true after completing evaluation of a throw-expression until a handler for the exception becomes active (15.3 [except.handle]).
The description of preprocessing expressions in 16.1 [cpp.cond] paragraph 4 says,
The resulting tokens comprise the controlling constant expression which is evaluated according to the rules of 5.19 using arithmetic that has at least the ranges specified in 18.2 [support.limits], except that all signed and unsigned integer types act as if they have the same representation as, respectively, intmax_t or uintmax_t (18.3.2).
However, this does not address the type implicitly assigned to integral literals. For example, in an implementation where int is 32 bits and long long is 64 bits, is a literal like 0xffffffff signed or unsigned? WG14 adopted DR 265 to deal with this issue in the essentially-identical wording in C99; we should probably follow suit for C++.
(From messages 11843-51.)
16.1 [cpp.cond] paragraph 1 states,
The expression that controls conditional inclusion shall be an integral constant expression except that: it shall not contain a cast...
The prohibition of casts is vacuous and misleading: as pointed out in the footnote in that paragraph,
Because the controlling constant expression is evaluated during translation phase 4, all identifiers either are or are not macro names — there simply are no keywords, enumeration constants, and so on.
As a result, there can be no casts, which require either keywords or identifiers that resolve to types in order to be recognized as casts. The wording on casts should be removed and replaced by a note recognizing this implication.
Notes from the April, 2007 meeting:
The CWG agreed with this suggested resolution; however, the reference is in the “Preprocessing Directives” clause, which WG21 intends to keep in as close synchronization as possible with the corresponding wording in the C Standard. Any change here must therefore be done in consultation with WG14. Clark Nelson will fulfill this liaison function.
It was also noted that the imminent introduction of constexpr also has the potential for a similar kind of confusion, so the proposed resolution should address both casts and constexpr.
Clause 16 [cpp] refers in several places to “character string literals” without specifying whether they are narrow or wide strings. For instance, what kind of string does the # operator (16.3.2 [cpp.stringize]) produce?
16.4 [cpp.line] paragraph 1 says,
The string literal of a #line directive, if present, shall be a character string literal.
Is “character string literal” intended to mean a narrow string literal? (Also, there is no string-literal mentioned in the grammatical descriptions of #line; paragraph 4 reads,
which is apparently intended to suggest a string literal but does not use the term.)
16.8 [cpp.predefined] should also specify what kind of character string literals are produced by the various string-valued predefined macros.
Notes from the July, 2007 meeting:
The CWG affirmed that all the string literals mentioned in Clause 16 [cpp] are intended to be narrow strings.
(From messages 11820-8 and 11831-42.)
The C++ Standard uses the phrase “indeterminate value” without defining it. C99 defines it as “either an unspecified value or a trap representation.” Should C++ follow suit?
In addition, 4.1 [conv.lval] paragraph 1 says that applying the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion to an “object [that] is uninitialized” results in undefined behavior; this should be rephrased in terms of an object with an indeterminate value.
From reflector messages 8111-19, 8122, 8124-26, 8129-31, 8139-40, 8142-46, and 8159-8165.
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: 7.1.6.1 [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.
(From messages 12236, 12255, 12258, 12260, and 12262.)
In 1.9 [intro.execution] paragraph 16, the following expression is still listed as an example of undefined behavior:
i = ++i + 1;
However, it appears that the new sequencing rules make this expression well-defined:
The assignment side-effect is required to be sequenced after the value computations of both its LHS and RHS (5.17 [expr.ass] paragraph 1).
The LHS (i) is an lvalue, so its value computation involves computing the address of i.
In order to value-compute the RHS (++i + 1), it is necessary to first value-compute the lvalue expression ++i and then do an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion on the result. This guarantees that the incrementation side-effect is sequenced before the computation of the addition operation, which in turn is sequenced before the assignment side effect. In other words, it yields a well-defined order and final value for this expression.
It should be noted that a similar expression
i = i++ + 1;
is still not well-defined, since the incrementation side-effect remains unsequenced with respect to the assignment side-effect.
It's unclear whether making the expression in the example well-defined was intentional or just a coincidental byproduct of the new sequencing rules. In either case either the example should be fixed, or the rules should be changed.
Clark Nelson: In my opinion, the poster's argument is perfectly correct. The rules adopted reflect the CWG's desired outcome for issue 222. At the Portland meeting, I presented (and still sympathize with) Tom Plum's case that these rules go a little too far in nailing down required behavior; this is a consequence of that.
One way or another, a change needs to be made, and I think we should seriously consider weakening the resolution of issue 222 to keep this example as having undefined behavior. This could be done fairly simply by having the sequencing requirements for an assignment expression depend on whether it appears in an lvalue context.
James Widman: How's this for a possible re-wording?
In all cases, the side effect of the assignment expression is sequenced after the value computations of the right and left operands. Furthermore, if the assignment expression appears in a context where an lvalue is required, the side effect of the assignment expression is sequenced before its value computation.
(From messages 12250-4, 12256-7, 12261, and 12263.
Is the behavior undefined in the following example?
void f() {
int n = 0;
n = --n;
}
1.9 [intro.execution] paragraph 16 says,
If a side effect on a scalar object is unsequenced relative to either a different side effect on the same scalar object or a value computation using the value of the same scalar object, the behavior is undefined.
It's not clear to me whether the two side-effects in n=--n are “different.” As far as I can tell, it seems that both side-effects involve the assignment of -1 to n, which in a sense makes them non-“different.” But I don't know if that's the intent. Would it be better to say “another” instead of “a different?”
On a related note, can we include this example to illustrate?
void f( int, int );
void g( int a ) { f( a = -1, a = -1 ); } // Undefined?
According to 2.1 [lex.phases] paragraph 1, in translation phase 1,
Any source file character not in the basic source character set (2.2 [lex.charset]) is replaced by the universal-character-name that designates that character.
If a character that is not in the basic character set is preceded by a backslash character, for example
"\á"
the result is equivalent to
"\\u00e1"
that is, a backslash character followed by the spelling of the universal-character-name. This is different from the result in C99, which accepts characters from the extended source character set without replacing them with universal-character-names.
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.
(From messages 10673-5.)
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+.
From message 10663.
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.
(From messages 11146, 11148-9, 11153, and 11155-6.)
The various uses of the term “declarative region” throughout the Standard indicate that the term is intended to refer to the entire block, class, or namespace that contains a given declaration. For example, 3.3 [basic.scope] paragraph 2 says, in part:
[Example: in
int j = 24; int main() { int i = j, j; j = 42; }The declarative region of the first j includes the entire example... The declarative region of the second declaration of j (the j immediately before the semicolon) includes all the text between { and }...
However, the actual definition given for “declarative region” in 3.3 [basic.scope] paragraph 1 does not match this usage:
Every name is introduced in some portion of program text called a declarative region, which is the largest part of the program in which that name is valid, that is, in which that name may be used as an unqualified name to refer to the same entity.
Because (except in class scope) a name cannot be used before it is declared, this definition contradicts the statement in the example and many other uses of the term throughout the Standard. As it stands, this definition is identical to that of the scope of a name.
The term “scope” is also misused. The scope of a declaration is defined in 3.3 [basic.scope] paragraph 1 as the region in which the name being declared is valid. However, there is frequent use of the phrase “the scope of a class,” not referring to the region in which the class's name is valid but to the declarative region of the class body, and similarly for namespaces, functions, exception handlers, etc. There is even a mention of looking up a name “in the scope of the complete postfix-expression” (3.4.5 [basic.lookup.classref] paragraph 3), which is the exact inverse of the scope of a declaration.
This terminology needs a thorough review to make it logically consistent. (Perhaps a discussion of the scope of template parameters could also be added to section 3.3 [basic.scope] at the same time, as all other kinds of scopes are described there.)
The Standard uses the terms “block scope” and “local scope” interchangeably, but the former is never formally defined. Would it be better to use only one term consistently? “Block scope” seems to be more frequently used.
From reflector message 8422.
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;
}
};
}
};
From reflector messages 8429-32.
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].
Both 3.4.3.1 [class.qual] and 3.4.3.2 [namespace.qual] specify that some lookups are to be performed “in the context of the entire postfix-expression,” ignoring the fact that qualified-ids can appear outside of expressions.
It was suggested in document J16/05-0156 = WG21 N1896 that these uses be changed to “the context in which the qualified-id occurs,” but it isn't clear that this formulation adequately covers all the places a qualified-id can occur.
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.
(From messages 9119, 9131-3.)
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.)
(From message 9120.)
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?
From messages 9480, 9481, 9483, 9485, 9486.
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).
From message 9680.
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.
From reflector message core-7686.
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' ;-)
(Also see reflector messages 7687 7688 7689 7691)
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'.]
(From message 12259.)
3.6.3 [basic.start.term] paragraph 2 says,
If a function contains a local object of static storage duration that has been destroyed and the function is called during the destruction of an object with static storage duration, the program has undefined behavior if the flow of control passes through the definition of the previously destroyed local object.
I would like to turn this behavior from undefined to well-defined behavior for the purpose of achieving a graceful shutdown, especially in a multi-threaded world.
Background: Alexandrescu describes the “phoenix singleton” in Modern C++ Design. This is a class used as a function local static, that will reconstruct itself, and reapply itself to the atexit chain, if the program attempts to use it after it is destructed in the atexit chain. It achieves this by setting a “destructed flag” in its own state in its destructor. If the object is later accessed (and a member function is called on it), the member function notes the state of the “destructed flag” and does the reconstruction dance. The phoenix singleton pattern was designed to address issues only in single-threaded code where accesses among static objects can have a non-scoped pattern. When we throw in multi-threading, and the possibility that threads can be running after main returns, the chances of accessing a destroyed static significantly increase.
The very least that I would like to see happen is to standardize what I believe is existing practice: When an object is destroyed in the atexit chain, the memory the object occupied is left in whatever state the destructor put it in. If this can only be reliably done for objects with standard layout, that would be an acceptable compromise. This would allow objects to set “I'm destructed” flags in their state and then do something well-defined if accessed, such as throw an exception.
A possible refinement of this idea is to have the compiler set up a 3-state flag around function-local statics instead of the current 2-state flag:
We have the first two states today. We might choose to add the third state, and if execution passes over a function-local static with “destroyed” state, an exception could be thrown. This would mean that we would not have to guarantee memory stability in destroyed objects of static duration.
This refinement would break phoenix singletons, and is not required for the ~mutex()/~condition() I've described and prototyped. But it might make it easier for Joe Coder to apply this kind of guarantee to his own types.
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 [containers]) of pointers show undefined behaviour, e.g. 23.2.3.3 [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.
(See also issue 623.)
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.
An lvalue referring to an out-of-lifetime non-POD class objects can be used in limited ways, subject to the restrictions in 3.8 [basic.life] paragraph 6:
if the original object will be or was of a non-POD class type, the program has undefined behavior if:
the lvalue is used to access a non-static data member or call a non-static member function of the object, or
the lvalue is implicitly converted (4.10 [conv.ptr]) to a reference to a base class type, or
the lvalue is used as the operand of a static_cast (5.2.9 [expr.static.cast]) except when the conversion is ultimately to cv char& or cv unsigned char& ), or
the lvalue is used as the operand of a dynamic_cast (5.2.7 [expr.dynamic.cast]) or as the operand of typeid.
There are at least a couple of questionable things in this list. First, there is no “implicit conversion to a reference to a base class,” as assumed by the second bullet. Presumably this is intended to say that the lvalue is bound to a reference to a base class, and the cross-reference should be to 8.5.3 [dcl.init.ref], not to 4.10 [conv.ptr] (which deals with pointer conversions). However, even given that adjustment, it is not clear why it is forbidden to bind a reference to a non-virtual base class of an out-of-lifetime object, as that is just an address offset calculation. (Binding to a virtual base, of course, would require access to the value of the object and thus cannot be done outside the object's lifetime.)
The third bullet also appears questionable. It's not clear why static_cast is discussed at all here, as the only permissible static_cast conversions involving reference types and non-POD classes are to references to base or derived classes and to the same type, modulo cv-qualification; if implicit “conversion” to a base class reference is forbidden in the second bullet, why would an explicit conversion be permitted in the third? Was this intended to refer to reinterpret_cast? Also, is there a reason to allow char types but disallow array-of-char types (which are more likely to be useful than a single char)?
(From message 10699.)
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.
(From messages 12285-6, 12289-90, 12294-8, 12300-4, and 12307-8.)
The original proposed wording for 3.9 [basic.types] paragraph 11 required a constexpr constructor for a literal class only “if the class has at least one user-declared constructor.” This wording was dropped during the review by CWG out of a desire to ensure that literal types not have any uninitialized members. Thus, a class like
struct pixel {
int x, y;
};
is not a literal type. However, if an object of that type is aggregate-initialized or value-initialized, there can be no uninitialized members; the missing wording should be restored in order to permit use of expressions like pixel().x as constant expressions.
(From message 12296.)
3.9 [basic.types] paragraph 11 requires that a class type have a trivial copy constructor in order to be classified as a literal type. This seems overly restrictive; presumably having a constexpr copy constructor would suffice. (Note that a trivial copy constructor is a constexpr constructor according to 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 4.)
From reflector message 8234.
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.
From messages 8932-3 and 8936-7.
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.)
(From messages 12313, 12315-6, 12319-21, 12329, and 12232.)
The requirements on an implementation when presented with an alignment-specifier not supported by that implementation in that context are contradictory: 3.11 [basic.align] paragraph 9 says,
If a request for a specific extended alignment in a specific context is not supported by an implementation, the implementation may reject the request as ill-formed. The implementation may also silently ignore the requested alignment.
In contrast, 7.1.7 [dcl.align] paragraph 2, bullet 4 says simply,
- if the constant expression evaluates to an extended alignment and the implementation does not support that alignment in the context of the declaration, the program is ill-formed
with no provision to “silently ignore” the requested alignment. These two passages need to be reconciled.
If the outcome of the reconciliation is to grant implementations the license to accept and ignore extended alignment requests, the specification should be framed in terms of mechanisms that already exist in the Standard, such as undefined behavior and/or conditionally-supported constructs; “ill-formed” is a category that is defined by the Standard, not something that an implementation can decide.
From messages 8866, 8869-71, 8875-6, 8878, and 8886-7.
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."
From messages 8833, 8835-6, 8838-9, 8844, 8846, 8849, 8851-3, and 8856-62.
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.
From reflector messages 8063, 8067-8071, 8080, 8082-8090.
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.non-static] , 9.4 [class.static] ) or explicit class member access (5.2.5 [expr.ref] ) whose id-expression is a function member name, or a pointer-to-member expression (5.5 [expr.mptr.oper] ) selecting a function member.
Mike Miller: To be clear, here's an example:
struct S {
virtual void f();
};
void (S::*pmf)();
void g(S* sp) {
sp->f(); // 1: polymorphic
sp->S::f(); // 2: non-polymorphic
(sp->S::f)(); // 3: non-polymorphic
(sp->*pmf)(); // 4: polymorphic
(sp->*&S::f)(); // 5: polymorphic
}
Notes from October 2002 meeting:
This was moved back to open for lack of a champion. Martin O'Riordan is not expected to be attending meetings.
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.
(See messages 10949-50 and 10953.)
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?
Notes from the April, 2006 meeting:
There was some concern expressed that this might be difficult under the IA64 ABI. It was also observed that while it is necessary to handle exceptions involving incomplete types, there is no requirement that the RTTI data structures be used for exception handling.
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 (18.5.1.3 [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.
(From message 11952.)
Issue 256 was closed without action, principally on the the grounds that an implementation could provide a means (command-line option, #pragma, etc.) for requesting that the allocation size be checked for validity, but that “it would not be appropriate to require this overhead for every array allocation in every program.”
This rationale may be giving too much weight to the overhead such a check would add, especially when compared to the likely cost of actually doing the storage allocation. In particular, the test essentially amounts to something like
if (max_allocation_size / sizeof(T) < num_elements)
throw std::bad_alloc();
(noting that max_allocation_size/sizeof(T) is a compile-time constant). It might make more sense to turn the rationale around and require the check, assuming that implementations could provide a mechanism for suppressing it if needed.
Suggested resolution:
In 5.3.4 [expr.new] paragraph 7, add the following words before the example:
If the value of the expression is such that the size of the allocated object would exceed the implementation-defined limit, an exception of type std::bad_alloc is thrown and no storage is obtained.
From reflector messages 8487, 8490-99.
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.
From message 8988.
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.
From message 8888.
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.
(From messages 11769-11817 and 11819.)
The current Standard leaves it implementation-defined whether integer division rounds the result toward 0 or toward negative infinity and thus whether the result of % may be negative. C99, apparently reflecting (nearly?) unanimous hardware practice, has adopted the rule that integer division rounds toward 0, thus requiring that the result of -1 % 5 be -1. Should the C++ Standard follow suit?
On a related note, does INT_MIN % -1 invoke undefined behavior? The % operator is defined in terms of the / operator, and INT_MIN / -1 overflows, which by 5 [expr] paragraph 5 causes undefined behavior; however, that is not the “result” of the % operation, so it's not clear. The wording of 5.6 [expr.mul] paragraph 4 appears to allow % to cause undefined behavior only when the second operand is 0.
(From reflector messages 11439-42.)
In C, this is ill-formed (cf C99 6.5.8):
void f(char* s) {
if (s < 0) { }
}
...but in C++, it's not. Why? Who would ever need to write (s > 0) when they could just as well write (s != 0)?
This has been in the language since the ARM (and possibly earlier); apparently it's because the pointer conversions (4.10 [conv.ptr]) need to be performed on both operands whenever one of the operands is of pointer type. So it looks like the "null-ptr-to-real-pointer-type" conversion is hitching a ride with the other pointer conversions.
From messages 8816-19.
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.
6.4.1 [stmt.if] is silent about whether the else clause of an if statement is executed if the condition is not evaluated. (This could occur via a goto or a longjmp.) C99 covers the goto case with the following provision:
If the first substatement is reached via a label, the second substatement is not executed.
It should probably also be stated that the condition is not evaluated when the “then” clause is entered directly.
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.
From reflector messages 8275-80, 8272-3.
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.
From reflector messages 10710-11.
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.
(From messages 12310-11 and 12317-8.)
According to 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 5,
If the instantiated template specialization of a constexpr function template would fail to satisfy the requirements for a constexpr function, the constexpr specifier is ignored and the specialization is not a constexpr function.
One would expect to see a similar provision for an instantiated constructor template (because the requirements for a constexpr function [paragraph 3] are different from the requirements for a constexpr constructor [paragraph 4]), but there is none; constexpr constructor templates are not mentioned.
Suggested resolution:
Change the wording of 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 5 as indicated:
If the instantiated template specialization of a constexpr function template would fail to satisfy the requirements for a constexpr function or constexpr constructor, as appropriate to the function template, the constexpr specifier is ignored and the specialization is not a constexpr function or constexpr constructor.
(From messages 12312 and 12314.)
The current wording of 7.1.5 [dcl.constexpr] paragraph 7 seems not quite correct. It reads,
A constexpr specifier used in an object declaration declares the object as const. Such an object shall be initialized, and every expression that appears in its initializer (8.5 [dcl.init]) shall be a constant expression.
The phrase “every expression” is intended to cover multiple arguments to a constexpr constructor and multiple expressions in an aggregate initializer. However, it could be read (incorrectly) as saying that non-constant expressions cannot appear as subexpressions in such initializers, even in places where they do not render the full-expression non-constant (i.e., as unevaluated operands and in the unselected branches of &&, ||, and ?:). Perhaps this problem could be remedied by replacing “every expression” with “every full-expression?”
The constraints on type-specifiers given in 7.1.6 [dcl.type] paragraphs 2 and 3 (at most one type-specifier except as specified, at least one type-specifier, no redundant cv-qualifiers) are couched in terms of decl-specifier-seqs and declarations. However, they should also apply to constructs that are not syntactically declarations and that are defined to use type-specifier-seqs, including 5.3.4 [expr.new], 6.6 [stmt.jump], 8.1 [dcl.name], and 12.3.2 [class.conv.fct].
The phrase “top-level cv-qualifier” is used numerous times in the Standard, but it is not defined. The phrase could be misunderstood to indicate that the const in something like const T& is at the “top level,” because where it appears is the highest level at which it is permitted: T& const is ill-formed.
(From messages 12283 and 12299.)
9.2 [class.mem] paragraph 2 says,
A class is considered a completely-defined object type (3.9 [basic.types]) (or complete type) at the closing } of the class-specifier. Within the class member-specification, the class is regarded as complete within function bodies, default arguments, and exception-specifications (including such things in nested classes). Otherwise it is regarded as incomplete within its own class member-specification.
In particular, the return type of a member function is not listed as a context in which the class type is considered complete; instead, that case is handled as an exception to the general rule in 8.3.5 [dcl.fct] paragraph 6 requiring a complete type in the definition of a function:
The type of a parameter or the return type for a function definition shall not be an incomplete class type (possibly cv-qualified) unless the function definition is nested within the member-specification for that class (including definitions in nested classes defined within the class).
These rules have implications for the use of decltype. (The following examples use the not-yet-accepted syntax for specifying the return type of a function after its declarator, but the questions apply to the current syntax as well.) Consider:
struct deduced {
int test() { return 0; }
auto eval( deduced& d )->decltype( d.test() ) {
return d.test();
}
};
5.2.5 [expr.ref] paragraph 1 requires that the class type of the object or pointer expression in a class member access expression be complete, so this usage is ill-formed.
A related issue is the use of this in a decltype specifier:
struct last_one {
int test() { return 0; }
auto eval()->decltype( this->test() ) {
return test();
}
};
9.3.2 [class.this] paragraph 1 allows use of this only in the body of a non-static member function, and the return type is not part of the function-body.
Do we want to change the rules to allow these kinds of decltype expressions?
The second bullet of 7.1.6.2 [dcl.type.simple] paragraph 4 reads,
- otherwise, if e is a function call (5.2.2 [expr.call]) or an invocation of an overloaded operator (parentheses around e are ignored), decltype(e) is the return type of that function;
The reference to “that function” is imprecise; it is not the actual function called at runtime but the statically chosen function (ignoring covariant return types in virtual functions).
Also, the examples in this paragraph have errors:
The declaration of struct A should end with a semicolon.
The lines of the form decltype(...); are ill-formed; they need a declarator.
From reflector message 8232.
7.1.6.3 [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 auto specifier can be used only in certain contexts, as specified in 7.1.6.4 [dcl.spec.auto] paragraphs 2-3:
Otherwise (auto appearing with no type specifiers other than cv-qualifiers), the auto type-specifier signifies that the type of an object being declared shall be deduced from its initializer. The name of the object being declared shall not appear in the initializer expression.
This use of auto is allowed when declaring objects in a block (6.3 [stmt.block]), in namespace scope (3.3.5 [basic.scope.namespace]), and in a for-init-statement (6.5.3 [stmt.for]). The decl-specifier-seq shall be followed by one or more init-declarators, each of which shall have a non-empty initializer of either of the following forms:
= assignment-expression
( assignment-expression )
It was intended that auto could be used only at the top level of a declaration, but it is not clear whether this wording is sufficient to forbid usage like the following:
template <class T> struct A {};
template <class T> void f(A<T> x) {}
void g()
{
f(A<short>());
A<auto> x = A<short>();
}
From reflector message core-7811.
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. Because of its small potential impact on code, it was given priority 3.
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: 14.5.4 [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.
(From reflector messages 11367-9.)
The Standard does not appear to specify what happens for code like the following:
namespace one {
template<typename T> void fun(T);
}
using one::fun;
template<typename T> void fun(T);
7.3.3 [namespace.udecl] paragraph 13 does not appear to apply because it deals only with functions, not function templates:
If a function declaration in namespace scope or block scope has the same name and the same parameter types as a function introduced by a using-declaration, and the declarations do not declare the same function, the program is ill-formed.
John Spicer: For function templates I believe the rule should be that if they have the same function type (parameter types and return type) and have identical template parameter lists, the program is ill-formed.
It is not clear whether some of the wording in 7.5 [dcl.link] that applies only to function types and names ought also to apply to object names. In particular, paragraph 3 says,
Every implementation shall provide for linkage to functions written in the C programming language, "C", and linkage to C++ functions, "C++".
Nothing is said about variable names, apparently meaning that implementations need not provide C (or even C++!) linkage for variable names. Also, paragraph 5 says,
Except for functions with C++ linkage, a function declaration without a linkage specification shall not precede the first linkage specification for that function. A function can be declared without a linkage specification after an explicit linkage specification has been seen; the linkage explicitly specified in the earlier declaration is not affected by such a function declaration.
There doesn't seem to be a good reason for these provisions not to apply to variable names, as well.
(From messages 10498-10506.) Split off from issue 453.
It is in general not possible to determine at compile time whether a reference is used before it is initialized. Nevertheless, there is some sentiment to require a diagnostic in the obvious cases that can be detected at compile time, such as the name of a reference appearing in its own initializer. The resolution of issue 453 originally made such uses ill-formed, but the CWG decided that this question should be a separate issue.
Rationale (October, 2005):
The CWG felt that this error was not likely to arise very often in practice. Implementations can warn about such constructs, and the resolution for issue 453 makes executing such code undefined behavior; that seemed to address the situation adequately.
Note (February, 2006):
Recent discussions (see messages 11162 and 11164 in particular, but also the rest of the thread to which they belong) have suggested that undefined behavior be reduced. One possibility (broadening the scope of this issue to include object declarations as well as references) was to require a diagnostic if the initializer uses the value, but not just the address, of the object or reference being declared:
int i = i; // Ill-formed, diagnostic required
void* p = &p; // Okay
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 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::*)[]);
8.3.5 [dcl.fct] paragraph 2 says,
The parameter list (void) is equivalent to the empty parameter list.
This special case is intended for C compatibility, but C99 describes it differently (6.7.5.3 paragraph 10):
The special case of an unnamed parameter of type void as the only item in the list specifies that the function has no parameters.
The C99 formulation allows typedefs for void, while C++ (and C90) accept only the keyword itself in this role. Should the C99 approach be adopted?
Notes from the October, 2006 meeting:
The CWG did not take a formal position on this issue; however, there was some concern expressed over the treatment of function templates and member functions of class templates if the C++ rule were changed: for a template parameter T, would a function taking a single parameter of type T become a no-parameter function if it were instantiated with T = void?
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.
From message 9576.
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.
From reflector messages 8265-6.
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.
Notes from 10/00 meeting: Priority lowered to 3.
From messages 8804-8806.
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.
According to 8.5 [dcl.init] paragraph 5,
To zero-initialize an object of type T means:
...
if T is a reference type, no initialization is performed.
However, a reference is not an object, so this makes no sense.
From message 10067.
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.
C (both C90 and C99) appear to allow a declaration of the form
struct S { int i; } s = { { 5 } };
in which the initializer of a scalar member of an aggregate can itself be brace-enclosed. The relevant wording from the C99 Standard is found in 6.7.8 paragraph 11:
The initializer for a scalar shall be a single expression, optionally enclosed in braces.
and paragraph 16:
Otherwise, the initializer for an object that has aggregate or union type shall be a brace-enclosed list of initializers for the elements or named members.
The “list of initializers” in paragraph 16 must be a recursive reference to paragraph 11 (that's the only place that describes how an initialized item gets its value from the initializer expression), which would thus make the “brace-enclosed” part of paragraph 11 apply to each of the initializers in the list in paragraph 16 as well.
This appears to be an incompatibility between C and C++: 8.5.1 [dcl.init.aggr] paragraph 11 says,
If the initializer-list begins with a left brace, then the succeeding comma-separated list of initializer-clauses initializes the members of a subaggregate....
which clearly leaves the impression that only a subaggregate may be initialized by a brace-enclosed initializer-clause.
Either the specification in 8.5.1 [dcl.init.aggr] should be changed to allow a brace-enclosed initializer of a scalar member of an aggregate, as in C, or this incompatibility should be listed in Appendix C [diff].
Notes from the July, 2007 meeting:
It was noted that implementations differ in their handling of this construct; however, the issue is long-standing and fairly obscure.
The resolutions of issues 391 and 450 say that the reference is “bound to” the class or array rvalue, but it does not say that the reference “binds directly” to the initializer, as it does for the cases that fall under the first bullet in 8.5.3 [dcl.init.ref] paragraph 5. However, this phrasing is important in determining the implicit conversion sequence for an argument passed to a parameter with reference type (13.3.3.1.4 [over.ics.ref]), where paragraph 2 says,
When a parameter of reference type is not bound directly to an argument expression, the conversion sequence is the one required to convert the argument expression to the underlying type of the reference according to 13.3.3.1 [over.best.ics]. Conceptually, this conversion sequence corresponds to copy-initializing a temporary of the underlying type with the argument expression.
The above-mentioned issue resolutions stated that no copy is to be made in such reference initializations, so the determination of the conversion sequence does not reflect the initialization semantics.
Simply using the “binds directly” terminology in the new wording may not be the right approach, however, as there are other places in the Standard that also give special treatment to directly-bound references. For example, the first bullet of 5.16 [expr.cond] paragraph 3 says,
If E2 is an lvalue: E1 can be converted to match E2 if E1 can be implicitly converted (clause 4 [conv]) to the type “reference to T2,” subject to the constraint that in the conversion the reference must bind directly (8.5.3 [dcl.init.ref]) to E1.
The effect of simply saying that a reference “binds directly” to a class rvalue can be seen in this example:
struct B { };
struct D: B { };
D f();
void g(bool x, const B& br) {
x ? f() : br; // result would be lvalue
}
It is not clear that treating this conditional expression as an lvalue is a desirable outcome, even if the result of f() were to “bind directly” to the const B& reference.
From message 9530.
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?
(From message 12291.)
The current wording defining a “common initial sequence” in 9.2 [class.mem] paragraph 17 does not address the case in which one member is a bit-field and the corresponding member is not:
Two standard-layout structs share a common initial sequence if corresponding members have layout-compatible types (and, for bit-fields, the same widths) for a sequence of one or more initial members.
Presumably the intent was something like, “(and, if one of the pair is a bit-field, the other is also a bit-field of the same width).”
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.)
From message 9494.
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.
Referring to a private member of a class, 11 [class.access] paragraph 1 says,
its name can be used only by members and friends of the class in which it is declared.
That wording does not appear to reflect the intent of access control, however. Consider the following:
struct S {
void f(int);
private:
void f(double);
};
void g(S* sp) {
sp->f(2); // Ill-formed?
}
The statement from 11 [class.access] paragraph 1 says that the name f can be used only by members and friends of S. Function g is neither, and it clearly contains a use of the name f. That appears to make it ill-formed, in spite of the fact that overload resolution will select the public member.
A related question is whether the use of the term “name” in the description of the effect of access control means that it does not apply to constructors and destructors, which do not have names.
Mike Miller: The phrase “its name can be used” should be understood as “it can be referred to by name.” Paragraph 4, among other places, makes it clear that access control is applied after overload resolution. The “name” phrasing is there to indicate that access control does not apply where the name is not used (in a call via a pointer, for example).
From message 9542-9544, 9546.
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.
Although it is not possible to specify a constructor's template arguments in a constructor invocation (because the constructor has no name but is invoked by use of the constructor's class's name), it is possible to “name” the constructor in declarative contexts: per 3.4.3.1 [class.qual] paragraph 2,
In a lookup in which the constructor is an acceptable lookup result, if the nested-name-specifier nominates a class C, and the name specified after the nested-name-specifier, when looked up in C, is the injected-class-name of C (clause 9 [class]), the name is instead considered to name the constructor of class C... Such a constructor name shall be used only in the declarator-id of a declaration that names a constructor.
Should it therefore be possible to specify template-arguments for a templated constructor in an explicit instantiation or specialization? For example,
template <int dim> struct T {};
struct X {
template <int dim> X (T<dim> &) {};
};
template X::X<> (T<2> &);
If so, that should be clarified in the text. In particular, 12.1 [class.ctor] paragraph 1 says,
Constructors do not have names. A special declarator syntax using an optional sequence of function-specifiers (7.1.2 [dcl.fct.spec]) followed by the constructor’s class name followed by a parameter list is used to declare or define the constructor.
This certainly sounds as if the parameter list must immediately follow the class name, with no allowance for a template argument list.
It would be worthwhile in any event to revise this wording to utilize the “considered to name” approach of 3.4.3.1 [class.qual]; as it stands, this wording sounds as if the following would be acceptable:
struct S {
S();
};
S() { } // qualified-id not required?
Notes from the October, 2006 meeting:
It was observed that explicitly specifying the template arguments in a constructor declaration is never actually necessary because the arguments are, by definition, all deducible and can thus be omitted.
From reflector messages 8505-6, 8508, 8510, and 8515.
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.
In describing the order of destruction of temporaries, 12.2 [class.temporary] paragraphs 4-5 say,
There are two contexts in which temporaries are destroyed at a different point than the end of the full-expression...
The second context is when a reference is bound to a temporary... A temporary bound to the returned value in a function return statement (6.6.3 [stmt.return]) persists until the function exits.
The following example illustrates the issues here:
struct S {
~S();
};
S& f() {
S s; // #1
return
(S(), // #2
S()); // #3
}
If the return type of f() were simply S instead of S&, the two temporaries would be destroyed at the end of the full-expression in the return statement in reverse order of their construction, followed by the destruction of the variable s at block-exit, i.e., the order of destruction of the S objects would be #3, #2, #1.
Because the temporary #3 is bound to the returned value, however, its lifetime is extended beyond the end of the full-expression, so that S object #2 is destroyed before #3.
There are two problems here. First, it is not clear what “until the function exits” means. Does it mean that the temporary is destroyed as part of the normal block-exit destructions, as described in 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.
Or is the point of destruction for #3 after the destruction of the “constructed objects... that are declared [emphasis mine] in that scope” (because temporary #3 was not “declared”)? I.e., should #3 be destroyed before or after #1?
The other problem is that, according to the recollection of one of the participants responsible for this wording, the intent was not to extend the lifetime of #3 but simply to emphasize that its lifetime ended before the function returned, i.e., that the result of f() could not be used without causing undefined behavior. This is also consistent with the treatment of this example by many implementations; MSVC++, g++, and EDG all destroy #3 before #2.
Suggested resolution:
Change 12.2 [class.temporary] paragraph 5 as indicated:
AThe lifetime of a temporary bound to the returned value in a function return statement (6.6.3 [stmt.return])persists until the function exitsis not extended; it is destroyed at the end of the full-expression in the return statement.
From messages 9794, 9795, 9797.
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.
From messages 8946 and 8948.
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"
(From reflector messages 11738 and 11740-49.)
In an example like,
struct Y {};
template <typename T>
struct X : public virtual Y { };
template <typename T>
class A : public X<T> {
template <typename S>
A (S)
: S ()
{
}
};
template A<int>::A (Y);
Should S be found? (S is a dependent name, so if it resolves to a base class type in the instantiated template, it should satisfy the requirements.) All the compilers I tried allowed this example, but 12.6.2 [class.base.init] paragraph 2 says,
Names in a mem-initializer-id are looked up in the scope of the constructor’s class and, if not found in that scope, are looked up in the scope containing the constructor’s definition.
The name S is not declared in those scopes.
Mike Miller: Here's another example that is accepted by most/all compilers but not by the current wording:
namespace N {
struct B { B(int); };
typedef B typedef_B;
struct D: B {
D();
};
}
N::D::D(): typedef_B(0) { }
Except for the fact that the constructor function parameter names are ignored (see paragraph 7), what the compilers seem to be doing is essentially ordinary unqualified name lookup.
From reflector messages 8038-8040.
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 templates.)
Is the following a “copy assignment operator?”
struct A {
const A& operator=(const A&) volatile;
};
12.8 [class.copy] paragraph 9 doesn't say one way or the other whether cv-qualifiers on the function are allowed. (A similar question applies to the const case, but I avoided that example because it seems so wrong one tends to jump to a conclusion before seeing what the standard says.)
Since the point of the definition of “copy assignment operator” is to control whether the compiler generates a default version if the user doesn’t, I suspect the correct answer is that neither const nor volatile cv-qualification on operator= should be allowed for a “copy assignment operator.” A user can write an operator= like that, but it doesn't affect whether the compiler generates the default one.
(See messages c++std-core-11083-6 and 11088.)
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.
(From messages 12266-70.)
12.3.2 [class.conv.fct] paragraph 1 says,
A conversion function is never used to convert a (possibly cv-qualified) object to the (possibly cv-qualified) same object type (or a reference to it), to a (possibly cv-qualified) base class of that type (or a reference to it), or to (possibly cv-qualified) void.
At what point is this enforced, and how is it enforced?
Consider this test case:
struct abc;
struct xyz {
xyz();
xyz(xyz &);
operator xyz& (); // #1
operator abc& (); // #2
};
struct abc : xyz {};
void foo(xyz &);
void bar() {
foo (xyz ());
}
If such conversion functions are part of the overload set, #1 is a better conversion than #2 to convert the temporary xyz object to a non-const reference required for foo's operand. If such conversion functions are not part of the overload set, then #2 would be selected, and AFAICT the program would be well formed.
If the conversion functions are not part of the overload set, then it would seem one cannot take their address. For instance, adding the following line to the above test case would find no suitable function:
xyz &(xyz::*ptr) () = &xyz::operator xyz &;
From message 9963.
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?
From reflector messages 8025-8031.
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.3.3.8 [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.
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.
The Standard does not normatively define which > and >> tokens are to be taken as closing a template-argument-list; instead, 14.2 [temp.names] paragraph 3 uses the undefined and imprecise term “non-nested:”
When parsing a template-id, the first non-nested > is taken as the end of the template-argument-list rather than a greater-than operator. Similarly, the first non-nested >> is treated as two consecutive but distinct > tokens, the first of which is taken as the end of the template-argument-list and completes the template-id.
The (non-normative) footnote clarifies that
A > that encloses the type-id of a dynamic_cast, static_cast, reinterpret_cast or const_cast, or which encloses the template-arguments of a subsequent template-id, is considered nested for the purpose of this description.
Aside from the questionable wording of this footnote (e.g., in what sense does a single terminating character “enclose” anything, and is a nested template-id “subsequent?”) and the fact that it is non-normative, it does not provide a complete definition of what “nesting” is intended to mean. For example, is the first > in this putative template-id “nested” or not?
X<a ? b > c : d>
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.
Is this code well-formed?
template <typename T> struct A {
struct B;
};
class C {
template <typename T> friend struct A<T>::B;
static int bar;
};
template <> struct A<char> {
struct B {
int f() {
return C::bar; // Is A<char>::B a friend of C?
}
};
};
According to 14.5.4 [temp.friend] paragraph 5,
A member of a class template may be declared to be a friend of a non-template class. In this case, the corresponding member of every specialization of the class template is a friend of the class granting friendship.
This would tend to indicate that the example is well-formed. However, technically A<char>::B does not “correspond to” the same-named member of the class template: 14.7.3 [temp.expl.spec] paragraph 4 says,
The definition of an explicitly specialized class is unrelated to the definition of a generated specialization. That is, its members need not have the same names, types, etc. as the members of a generated specialization.
In other words, there are no “corresponding members” in an explicit specialization.
Is this the outcome we want for examples like the preceding? There is diversity among implementations on this question, with some accepting the example and others rejecting it as an access violation.
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 14.5.6.1 [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.
(Previously numbered 934.)
Issue 1:
14.5.6.2 [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:
14.5.6.2 [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?
John Spicer will propose a resolution, which may or may not require a change to the standard.
Issue 3:
14.5.6.2 [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.
From messages 9821, 9822
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.
From reflector message 8361.
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):
(See reflector messages 10808-9, 10818, 10822-3, 10841-2, 10844-8, 10850-6, 10871, 10873-6, 10878, and 10881-2.) Priority unset in light of renewed interest to allow reconsideration, if desired.
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.
(From messages 11548-52.)
Consider the following example:
template<class T>
struct A {
template<class U>
friend struct A; // Which A?
};
Presumably the lookup for A in the friend declaration finds the injected-class-name of the template. However, according to 14.6.1 [temp.local] paragraph 1,
The injected-class-name can be used with or without a template-argument-list. When it is used without a template-argument-list, it is equivalent to the injected-class-name followed by the template-parameters of the class template enclosed in <>. When it is used with a template-argument-list, it refers to the specified class template specialization, which could be the current specialization or another specialization.
If that rule applies, then this example is ill-formed (because you can't have a template-argument-list in a class template declaration that is not a partial specialization).
Mike Miller: The injected-class-name has a dual nature, as described in 14.6.1 [temp.local], acting as either a template name or a class name, depending on the context; a template argument list forces the name to be interpreted as a template. It seems reasonable that in this example the injected-class-name has to be understood as referring to the class template; a template header is at least as strong a contextual indicator as a template argument list. However, the current wording doesn't say that.
(From messages 11506-9.)
Is the following example well-formed?
template<class T> struct A {
typedef int M;
struct B {
typedef void M;
struct C;
};
};
template<class T> struct A<T>::B::C : A<T> {
M // A<T>::M or A<T>::B::M?
p[2];
};
14.6.2 [temp.dep] paragraph 3 says the use of M should refer to A<T>::B::M because the base class A<T> is not searched because it's dependent. But in this case A<T> is also the current instantiation (14.6.2.1 [temp.dep.type]) so it seems like it should be searched.
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.
(From reflector message 11505.)
In 14.6.2.1 [temp.dep.type] paragraph 5 we have:
A name is a member of an unknown specialization if the name is a qualified-id in which the nested-name-specifier names a dependent type that is not the current instantiation.
So given:
template<class T> struct A {
struct B {
struct C {
A<T>::B::C f();
};
};
};
it appears that the name A<T>::B::C should be taken as a member of an unknown specialization, because the WP refers to “the” current instantiation, implying that there can be at most one at any given time. At the declaration of f(), the current instantiation is C, so A<T>::B is not the current instantiation.
Would it be better to refer to “a known instantiation” instead of “the current instantiation?”
Mike Miller:
I agree that there is a problem here, but I don't think the “current instantiation” terminology needs to be replaced. By way of background, paragraph 1 makes it clear that A<T>::B “refers to” the current instantiation:
In the definition of a class template, a nested class of a class template, a member of a class template, or a member of a nested class of a class template, a name refers to the current instantiation if it is
the injected-class-name (9 [class]) of the class template or nested class,
in the definition of a primary class template, the name of the class template followed by the template argument list of the primary template (as described below) enclosed in <>,
in the definition of a nested class of a class template, the name of the nested class referenced as a member of the current instantiation...
A<T>::B satisfies bullet 3. Paragraph 4 says,
A name is a member of the current instantiation if it is
An unqualified name that, when looked up, refers to a member of a class template. [Note: this can only occur when looking up a name in a scope enclosed by the definition of a class template. —end note]
A qualified-id in which the nested-name-specifier refers to the current instantiation.
So clearly by paragraphs 1 and 4, A<T>::B::C is a member of the current instantiation. The problem is in the phrasing of paragraph 5, which incorrectly requires that the nested-name-specifier “be” the current instantiation rather than simply “referring to” the current instantiation, which would be the correct complement to paragraph 4. Perhaps paragraph 5 could simply be rephrased as, “...a dependent type and it is not a member of the current instantiation.”
(Paragraph 1 may require a bit more wordsmithing to make it truly recursive across multiple levels of nested classes; as it stands, it's not clear whether the name of a nested class of a nested class of a class template is covered or 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.]
John Spicer points out that the problem of limiting these to a single declarator, addressed in the suggested solution by replacing declaration by decl-specifier-seq followed by declarator, is solved for similar template cases by a non-syntactic constraint, e.g., 14 [temp] paragraph 3, and perhaps a similar approach should be taken here.
From message 8987.
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.
(From message 9092.)
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?
14.5.6.2 [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.
(From reflector messages 10752-57.)
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.
(From messages 11709, 11713, 11715-6, 11721, and 11731. In particular, the writeup below is courtesy of Howard Hinnant in message 11731.)
There are a couple of minor problems with the rvalue reference wording in the WP. The non-normative note in 14.8.2.1 [temp.deduct.call] paragraph 3 says,
[Note: The effect of this rule for lvalue arguments and rvalue reference parameters is that deduction in such cases will fail unless the function parameter is of the form cv T&& (14.8.2.5 [temp.deduct.type]). —end note]
It turns out that this isn't correct. For example:
template <class T> void g(basic_string<T> && );
...
basic_string<char> s;
g(s); // Note says that it should fail, we want it to call
// g<char>(basic_string<char>&&)
Additionally, consider this case:
template <class T> void f(const T&&);
...
int i;
f(i);
If we deduce T as int& in this case then f(i) calls f<int&>(int&), which seems counterintuitive. We prefer that f<int>(const int&&) be called. Therefore, we would like the wording clarified that the A& deduction rule in 14.8.2.1 [temp.deduct.call] paragraph 3 applies only to the form T&& and not to cv T&& as the note currently implies.
These are minor tweaks to the rvalue reference wording and a fallout from issue 540. In particular, the major applications of move semantics and perfect forwarding are not impacted with respect to the original intentions of the rvalue reference work by these suggestions.
Suggested resolution:
Change 14.8.2.1 [temp.deduct.call] paragraph 3 as follows:
If P is
an rvalue reference typeof the form T&&, where T is a template parameter, and the argument is an lvalue,the type A& is used in place of A for type deductionT is deduced as A&. [Example:template <typename T> int f(T&&); int i; int j = f(i); // calls f<int&>(i) template <typename T> int g(const T&&); int k; int n = f(k); // calls f<int>(k)—end example]
[Note: The effect of this rule for lvalue arguments and rvalue reference parameters is that deduction in such cases will fail unless the function parameter is of the form cv T&& (14.8.2.5 [temp.deduct.type]). —end note]
From messages 10467, 10469.
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'.
Notes from October 2004 meeting:
Jason Merrill will investigate further.
From message 9762.
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.
A type used in an exception specification must be complete (15.4 [except.spec] paragraph 2). The resolution of issue 437 stated that a class type appearing in an exception specification inside its own member-specification is considered to be complete. Should this also apply to exception specifications in class templates instantiated because of a reference inside the member-specification of a class? For example,
template<class T> struct X {
void f() throw(T) {}
};
struct S {
X<S> xs;
};
From reflector messages 8650, 8655-64, and 8669.
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?
Herb Sutter (June, 2007): IMO, it's fine to suppress it. The user had the option of flushing the buffer and thus being notified of the problem and chose not to use it. If the caller didn't flush, then likely the caller isn't ready for an exception from the destructor, either. You could also put an assert into the destructor that would trigger if flush() had not been called, to force callers to use the interface that would report the error. (See extensive discussion of this issue on the -ext reflector in the thread beginning with message 9692. This excerpt is from message 9783.)
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.)
When a function throws an exception that is not in its exception-specification, std::unexpected() is called. According to 15.5.2 [except.unexpected] paragraph 2,
If [std::unexpected()] throws or rethrows an exception that the exception-specification does not allow then the following happens: If the exception-specification does not include the class std::bad_exception (18.7.2.1 [bad.exception]) then the function std::terminate() is called, otherwise the thrown exception is replaced by an implementation-defined object of the type std::bad_exception, and the search for another handler will continue at the call of the function whose exception-specification was violated.
The “replaced by” wording is imprecise and undefined. For example, does this mean that the destructor is called for the existing exception object, or is it simply abandoned? Is the replacement in situ, so that a pointer to the existing exception object will now point to the std::bad_exception object?
Mike Miller: The call to std::unexpected() is not described as analogous to invoking a handler, but if it were, that would resolve this question; it is clearly specified what happens to the previous exception object when a new exception is thrown from a handler (15.1 [except.throw] paragraph 4).
This approach would also clarify other questions that have been raised regarding the requirements for stack unwinding. For example, 15.5.1 [except.terminate] paragraph 2 says that
In the situation where no matching handler is found, it is implementation-defined whether or not the stack is unwound before std::terminate() is called.
This requirement could be viewed as in conflict with the statement in 15.5.2 [except.unexpected] paragraph 1 that
If a function with an exception-specification throws an exception that is not listed in the exception-specification, the function std::unexpected() is called (18.7.2 [exception.unexpected]) immediately after completing the stack unwinding for the former function.
If it is implementation-defined whether stack unwinding occurs before calling std::terminate() and std::unexpected() is called only after doing stack unwinding, does that mean that it is implementation-defined whether std::unexpected() is called if there is ultimately no handler found?
Again, if invoking std::unexpected() were viewed as essentially invoking a handler, the answer to this would be clear, because unwinding occurs before invoking a handler.
(From messages 9033-40.)
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. (This was cited in message core-9035 and came from document X3J11/86-196.) 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.
From messages 8914-15 and 8918.
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.