| Document number: | J16/07-0023 = WG21 N2163 |
| Date: | 2007-01-14 |
| 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 that have been categorized as Defect Reports by the Committee (J16 + WG21), that is, issues with status "DR," "WP," and "TC1," along with their proposed resolutions. ONLY RESOLUTIONS FOR ISSUES WITH TC1 STATUS ARE PART OF THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD FOR C++. The other issues are provided for informational purposes only, as an indication of the intent of the Committee. They should not be considered definitive until or unless they appear in an approved Technical Corrigendum or revised International Standard for C++.
This document is part of a group of related documents that together describe the issues that have been raised regarding the C++ Standard. The other documents in the group are:
For more information, including a description of the meaning of the issue status codes and instructions on reporting new issues, please see the Active Issues List.
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
The current wording of 2.13.2 lex.ccon paragraph 3 states,
If the character following a backslash is not one of those specified, the behavior is undefined.
Paper J16/04-0167=WG21 N1727 suggests that such character escapes be ill-formed. In discussions at the Lillehammer meeting, however, the CWG felt that the newly-approved category of conditionally-supported behavior would be more appropriate.
Proposed resolution (April, 2006):
Change the next-to-last sentence of 2.13.2 lex.ccon paragraph 3 from:
If the character following a backslash is not one of those specified, the behavior is undefined.
to:
Escape sequences in which the character following the backslash is not listed in Table 6 are conditionally-supported, with implementation-defined semantics.
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
Is the following code well-formed?
namespace N {
int i;
extern int j;
}
int N::j = i;
The question here is whether the lookup for i in the initializer of N::j finds the declaration in namespace N or not. Implementations differ on this question.
If N::j were a static data member of a class, the answer would be clear: both 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual paragraph 12 and 8.5 dcl.init paragraph 11 say that the initializer “is in the scope of the member's class.” There is no such provision for namespace members defined outside the namespace, however.
The reasoning given in 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual may be instructive:
A name used in the definition of a static data member of class X (9.4.2 class.static.data) (after the qualified-id of the static member) is looked up as if the name was used in a member function of X.
It is certainly the case that a name used in a function that is a member of a namespace is looked up in that namespace (3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual paragraph 6), regardless of whether the definition is inside or outside that namespace. Initializers for namespace members should probably be looked up the same way.
Proposed resolution (April, 2006):
Add a new paragraph following 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual paragraph 12:
If a variable member of a namespace is defined outside of the scope of its namespace then any name used in the definition of the variable member (after the declarator-id) is looked up as if the definition of the variable member occurred in its namespace. [Example:
namespace N { int i = 4; extern int j; } int i = 2; int N::j = i; // N::j == 4—end example]
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
One might assume from 14.7.1 temp.inst paragraph 1 that argument-dependent lookup would require instantiation of any class template specializations used in argument types:
Unless a class template specialization has been explicitly instantiated (14.7.2 temp.explicit) or explicitly specialized (14.7.3 temp.expl.spec), the class template specialization is implicitly instantiated when the specialization is referenced in a context that requires a completely-defined object type or when the completeness of the class type affects the semantics of the program.
A complete class type is required to determine the associated classes and namespaces for the argument type (to determine the class's bases) and to determine the friend functions declared by the class, so the completeness of the class type certainly “affects the semantics of the program.”
This conclusion is reinforced by the second bullet of 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep paragraph 2:
If T is a class type (including unions), its associated classes are: the class itself; the class of which it is a member, if any; and its direct and indirect base classes. Its associated namespaces are the namespaces in which its associated classes are defined.
A class template specialization is a class type, so the second bullet would appear to apply, requiring the specialization to be instantiated in order to determine its base classes.
However, bullet 8 of that paragraph deals explicitly with class template specializations:
If T is a class template specialization its associated namespaces and classes are the namespace in which the template is defined; for member templates, the member template’s class; the namespaces and classes associated with the types of the template arguments provided for template type parameters (excluding template template parameters); the namespaces in which any template template arguments are defined; and the classes in which any member templates used as template template arguments are defined.
Note that the class template specialization itself is not listed as an associated class, unlike other class types, and there is no mention of base classes. If bullet 8 were intended as a supplement to the treatment of class types in bullet 2, one would expect phrasing along the lines of, “In addition to the associated namespaces and classes for all class types...” or some such; instead, bullet 8 reads like a self-contained and complete specification.
If argument-dependent lookup does not cause implicit instantiation, however, examples like the following fail:
template <typename T> class C {
friend void f(C<T>*) { }
};
void g(C<int>* p) {
f(p); // found by ADL??
}
Implementations differ in whether this example works or not.
Proposed resolution (April, 2006):
Change bullet 2 of 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep paragraph 2 as indicated:
If T is a class type (including unions), its associated
classes are: the class itself; the class of which it is a member, if
any; and its direct and indirect base classes. Its associated
namespaces are the namespaces in of which its associated
classes are defined members. Furthermore,
if T is a class template specialization, its associated
namespaces and classes also include: the namespaces and classes
associated with the types of the template arguments provided for
template type parameters (excluding template template parameters); the
namespaces of which any template template arguments are members; and
the classes of which any member templates used as template template
arguments are members. [Note: Non-type template arguments do not
contribute to the set of associated namespaces. —end
note]
Delete bullet 8 of 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep paragraph 2:
If T is a class template specialization its associated namespaces and classes are the namespace in which the template is defined; for member templates, the member template’s class; the namespaces and classes associated with the types of the template arguments provided for template type parameters (excluding template template parameters); the namespaces in which any template template arguments are defined; and the classes in which any member templates used as template template arguments are defined. [Note: non-type template arguments do not contribute to the set of associated namespaces. —end note]
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
I believe this program is invalid:
struct A {
};
struct C {
struct A {};
void f ();
};
void C::f () {
::A *a;
a->~A ();
}
The problem is that 3.4.5
basic.lookup.classref says that you have to look
up A in both the context of the pointed-to-type (i.e.,
::A), and
in the context of the postfix-expression (i.e., the body of C::f), and
that if the name is found in both places it must name the same type in
both places.
The EDG front end does not issue an error about this program, though.
Am I reading the standardese incorrectly?
John Spicer: I think you are reading it correctly. I think I've been hoping that this would get changed. Unlike other dual lookup contexts, this is one in which the compiler already knows the right answer (the type must match that of the left hand of the -> operator). So I think that if either of the types found matches the one required, it should be sufficient. You can't say a->~::A(), which means you are forced to say a->::A::~A(), which disables the virtual mechanism. So you would have to do something like create a local typedef for the desired type.
See also issues 244, 399, and 466.
Proposed resolution (April, 2006):
Remove the indicated text from 3.4.5 basic.lookup.classref paragraph 2:
If the id-expression in a class member access (5.2.5 expr.ref) is an unqualified-id, and the type of the object expression is of a class type C(or of pointer to a class type C), the unqualified-id is looked up in the scope of class C...
Change 3.4.5 basic.lookup.classref paragraph 3 as indicated:
If the unqualified-id is ~type-name, the type-name is looked up in the context of the entire postfix-expression.andIf the type T of the object expression is of a class type C(or of pointer to a class type C), the type-name is also looked upin the context of the entire postfix-expression andin the scope of class C.The type-name shall refer to a class-name. If type-name is found in both contexts, the name shall refer to the same class type. If the type of the object expression is of scalar type, the type-name is looked up in the scope of the complete postfix-expression.At least one of the lookups shall find a name that refers to (possibly cv-qualified) T. [Example:struct A { }; struct B { struct A { }; void f(::A* a); }; void B::f(::A* a) { a->~A(); // OK, lookup in *a finds the injected-class-name }—end example]
[Note: this change also resolves issue 414.]
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
By 3.4.5 basic.lookup.classref paragraph 3, the following is ill-formed because the two lookups of the destructor name (in the scope of the class of the object and in the surrounding context) find different Xs:
struct X {};
int main() {
X x;
struct X {};
x.~X(); // Error?
}
This is silly, because the compiler knows what the type has to be, and one of the things found matches that. The lookup should require only that one of the lookups finds the required class type.
Proposed resolution (April, 2005):
This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 305.
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
According to 3.7.3.1 basic.stc.dynamic.allocation paragraph 3,
Any other allocation function that fails to allocate storage shall only indicate failure by throwing an exception of class std::bad_alloc (18.4.2.1 lib.bad.alloc) or a class derived from std::bad_alloc.
Shouldn't this statement have the usual requirements for an unambiguous and accessible base class?
Proposed resolution (April, 2006):
Change the last sentence of 3.7.3.1 basic.stc.dynamic.allocation paragraph 3 as indicated:
Any other allocation function that fails to allocate storage shallonlyindicate failure only by throwing an exception ofclass std::bad_alloc (18.4.2.1 lib.bad.alloc) or a class derived from std::bad_alloca type that would match a handler (15.3 except.handle) of type std::bad_alloc (18.4.2.1 lib.bad.alloc).
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
When the Standard refers to a virtual base class, it should be understood to include base classes of virtual bases. However, the Standard doesn't actually say this anywhere, so when 4.11 conv.mem (for example) forbids casting to a derived class member pointer from a virtual base class member pointer, it could be read as meaning:
struct B {};
struct D : public B {};
struct D2 : virtual public D {};
int B::*p;
int D::*q;
void f() {
static_cast<int D2::*>(p); // permitted
static_cast<int D2::*>(q); // forbidden
}
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 4.11 conv.mem paragraph 2 as indicated:
...If B is an inaccessible (clause 11 class.access), ambiguous (10.2 class.member.lookup) or virtual (10.1 class.mi) base class of D, or a base class of a virtual base class of D, a program that necessitates this conversion is ill-formed...
Change 5.2.9 expr.static.cast paragraph 2 as indicated:
...and B isnotneither a virtual base class of D nor a base class of a virtual base class of D...
Change 5.2.9 expr.static.cast paragraph 9 as indicated:
...and B isnotneither a virtual base class of D nor a base class of a virtual base class of D...
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
The current wording of 5.2.2 expr.call paragraph 7 states:
When there is no parameter for a given argument, the argument is passed in such a way that the receiving function can obtain the value of the argument by invoking va_arg (18.7 lib.support.runtime). The lvalue-to-rvalue (4.1 conv.lval), array-to-pointer (4.2 conv.array), and function-to-pointer (4.3 conv.func) standard conversions are performed on the argument expression. After these conversions, if the argument does not have arithmetic, enumeration, pointer, pointer to member, or class type, the program is ill-formed. If the argument has a non-POD class type (clause 9 class), the behavior is undefined.
Paper J16/04-0167=WG21 N1727 suggests that passing a non-POD object to ellipsis be ill-formed. In discussions at the Lillehammer meeting, however, the CWG felt that the newly-approved category of conditionally-supported behavior would be more appropriate.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 5.2.2 expr.call paragraph 7 as indicated:
...After these conversions, if the argument does not have arithmetic, enumeration, pointer, pointer to member, or class type, the program is ill-formed.If the argument has a non-POD class type (clause 9), the behavior is undefined.Passing an argument of non-POD class type (clause 9) with no corresponding parameter is conditionally-supported, with implementation-defined semantics.
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
The following translation unit appears to be well-formed.
int x[true?throw 4:5];
According to 5.19 expr.const, this appears to be an integral constant expression: it is a conditional expression, involves only literals, and no assignment, increment, decrement, function-call, or comma operators. However, if this is well-formed, the standard gives no meaning to this declaration, since the array bound (8.3.4 dcl.array paragraph 1) cannot be computed.
I believe the defect is that throw expressions should also be banned from constant expressions.
Notes from October 2002 meeting:
We should also check on new and delete.
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
Although it could be argued that all three of these operators potentially involve function calls — throw to std::terminate, new and delete to the corresponding allocation and deallocation functions — and thus would already be excluded from constant expressions, this reasoning was considered to be too subtle to allow closing the issue with no change. A modification that explicitly clarifies the status of these operators will be drafted.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change the last sentence of 5.19 expr.const as indicated:
In particular, except in sizeof expressions, functions, class objects, pointers, or references shall not be used, and assignment, increment, decrement,function-callfunction call (including new-expressions and delete-expressions),orcomma operators, or throw-expressions shall not be used.
Note: this sentence is also changed by the resolution of issue 530.
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
I couldn't find wording that makes it invalid to say friend virtual... The closest seems to be 7.1.2 dcl.fct.spec paragraph 5, which says:
The virtual specifier shall only be used in declarations of nonstatic class member functions that appear within a member-specification of a class definition; see 10.3 class.virtual.
I don't think that excludes a friend declaration (which is a valid member-specification by 9.2 class.mem).
John Spicer: I agree that virtual should not be allowed on friend declarations. I think the wording in 7.1.2 dcl.fct.spec is intended to be the declaration of a function within its class, although I think the wording should be improved to make it clearer.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 7.1.2 dcl.fct.spec paragraphs 5-6 as indicated:
The virtual specifier shall
onlybe used only indeclarationsthe initial declaration of a non-static class memberfunctions that appear within a member-specification of a class definitionfunction; see10.3 class.virtual .The explicit specifier shall be used only in
declarationsthe declaration ofconstructorsa constructor withinaits class definition; see 12.3.1 class.conv.ctor.
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
7.1.5.2 dcl.type.simple paragraph 3 reads,
It is implementation-defined whether bit-fields and objects of char type are represented as signed or unsigned quantities. The signed specifier forces char objects and bit-fields to be signed; it is redundant with other integral types.
The last sentence in that quote is misleading w.r.t. bit-fields. The first sentence in that quote is correct but incomplete.
Proposed fix: change the two sentences to read:
It is implementation-defined whether objects of char type are represented as signed or unsigned quantities. The signed specifier forces char objects signed; it is redundant with other integral types except when declaring bit-fields (9.6 class.bit).
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 7.1.5.2 dcl.type.simple paragraph 3 as indicated:
When multiple simple-type-specifiers are allowed, they can be freely intermixed with other decl-specifiers in any order. [Note: It is implementation-defined whetherbit-fields andobjects of char type and certain bit-fields (9.6 class.bit) are represented as signed or unsigned quantities. The signed specifier forces bit-fields and char objectsand bit-fieldsto be signed; it is redundantwith other integral typesin other contexts. —end note]
[Voted into the WP at the October, 2006 meeting as part of paper J16/06-0188 = WG21 N2118.]
The resolution of issue 106 specifies that an attempt to create a type “reference to cv1 T,” where T is a typedef or template parameter of the type “reference to cv2 S,” actually creates the type “reference to cv12 S,” where cv12 is the union of the two sets of cv-qualifiers.
One objection that has been raised to this resolution is that it is inconsistent with the treatment of cv-qualification and references specified in 8.3.2 dcl.ref paragraph 1, which says that cv-qualifiers applied to a typedef or template argument that is a reference type are ignored. For example:
typedef int& intref;
const intref r1; // reference to int
const intref& r2; // reference to const int
In fact, however, these two declarations are quite different. In the declaration of r1, const applies to a “top-level” reference, while in the declaration of t2, it occurs under a reference. In general, cv-qualifiers that appear under a reference are preserved, even if the type appears in a context in which top-level cv-qualification is removed, for example, in determining the type of a function from parameter types (8.3.5 dcl.fct paragraph 3) and in template argument deduction (14.8.2.1 temp.deduct.call paragraph 2).
Another objection to the resolution is that type composition gives different results in a single declaration than it does when separated into two declarations. For example:
template <class T>
struct X {
typedef T const T_const;
typedef T_const& type1;
typedef T const& type2;
};
X<int&>::type1 t1; // int&
X<int&>::type2 t2; // int const&
The initial motivation for the propagation of cv-qualification during reference-to-reference collapse was to prevent inadvertent loss of cv-qualifiers in contexts in which it could make a difference. For example, if the resolution were changed to discard, rather than propagate, embedded cv-qualification, overload resolution could surprisingly select a non-const version of a member function:
struct X {
void g();
void g() const;
};
template <typename T> struct S {
static void f(const T& t) {
t.g(); // const or non-const???
}
};
X x;
void q() {
S<X>::f(x); // calls X::g() const
S<X&>::f(x); // calls X::g()
}
Another potentially-surprising outcome of dropping embedded cv-qualifiers would be:
template <typename T> struct A {
void f(T&); // mutating version
void f(const T&); // non-mutating version
};
A<int&> ai; // Ill-formed: A<int&> declares f(int&) twice
On the other hand, those who would like to see the resolution changed to discard embedded cv-qualifiers observe that these examples are too simple to be representative of real-world code. In general, it is unrealistic to expect that a template written with non-reference type parameters in mind will automatically work correctly with reference type parameters as a result of applying the issue 106 resolution. Instead, template metaprogramming allows the template author to choose explicitly whether cv-qualifiers are propagated or dropped, according to the intended use of the template, and it is more important to respect the reasonable intuition that a declaration involving a template parameter will not change the type that the parameter represents.
As a sample of real-world code, tr1::tuple was examined. In both cases — the current resolution of issue 106 and one in which embedded cv-qualifiers were dropped — some metaprogramming was required to implement the intended interface, although the version reflecting the revised resolution was somewhat simpler.
Notes from the October, 2005 meeting:
The consensus of the CWG was that the resolution of issue 106 should be revised not to propagate embedded cv-qualification.
Note (February, 2006):
The wording included in the rvalue-reference paper, J16/06-0022 = WG21 N1952, incorporates changes intended to implement the October, 2005 consensus of the CWG.
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
As a result of the resolution of core issue 48, the current C++ standard is not in sync with existing practice and with user expectations as far as definitions of static data members having const integral or const enumeration type are concerned. Basically what current implementations do is to require a definition only if the address of the constant is taken. Example:
void f() {
std::string s;
...
// current implementations don't require a definition
if (s.find('a', 3) == std::string::npos) {
...
}
To the letter of the standard, though, the above requires a definition of npos, since the expression std::string::npos is potentially evaluated. I think this problem would be easily solved with simple changes to 9.4.2 class.static.data paragraph 4, 9.4.2 class.static.data paragraph 5 and 3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 3.
Suggested resolution:
Replace 9.4.2 class.static.data paragraph 4 with:
If a static data member is of const integral or const enumeration type, its declaration in the class definition can specify a constant-initializer which shall be [note1] an integral constant expression (5.19). In that case, the member can appear in integral constant expressions. No definition of the member is required, unless an lvalue expression that designates it is potentially evaluated and either used as operand to the built-in unary & operator [note 2] or directly bound to a reference.
If a definition exists, it shall be at namespace scope and shall not contain an initializer.
In 9.4.2 class.static.data paragraph 5 change
There shall be exactly one definition of a static data member that is used in a program; no diagnostic is required; see 3.2.
to
Except as allowed by 9.4.2 par. 4, there shall be exactly one definition of a static data member that is potentially evaluated (3.2) in a program; no diagnostic is required.
In 3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 3 add, at the beginning:
Except for the omission allowed by 9.4.2, par. 4, ...
[note 1] Actually it shall be a "= followed by a constant-expression". This could probably be an editorial fix, rather than a separate DR.
[note 2] Note that this is the case when reinterpret_cast-ing to a reference, like in
struct X { static const int value = 0; };
const char & c = reinterpret_cast<const char&>(X::value);
See 5.2.10
expr.reinterpret.cast/10
More information, in response to a question about why issue 48 does not resolve the problem:
The problem is that the issue was settled in a way that solves much less than it was supposed to solve; that's why I decided to file, so to speak, a DR on a DR.
I understand this may seem a little 'audacious' on my part, but please keep reading. Quoting from the text of DR 48 (emphasis mine):
Originally, all static data members still had to be defined outside the class whether they were used or not.
But that restriction was supposed to be lifted [...]
In particular, if an integral/enum const static data member is initialized within the class, and its address is never taken, we agreed that no namespace-scope definition was required.
The corresponding resolution doesn't reflect this intent, with the definition being still required in most situations anyway: it's enough that the constant appears outside a place where constants are required (ignoring the obvious cases of sizeof and typeid) and you have to provide a definition. For instance:
struct X {
static const int c = 1;
};
void f(int n)
{
if (n == X::c) // <-- potentially evaluated
...
}
<start digression>
Most usages of non-enum BOOST_STATIC_COSTANTs, for instance, are (or were, last time I checked) non-conforming. If you recall, Paul Mensonides pointed out that the following template
// map_integral
template<class T, T V> struct map_integral : identity<T> {
static const T value = V;
};
template<class T, T V> const T map_integral<T, V>::value;
whose main goal is to map the same couples (type, value) to the same storage, also solves the definition problem. In this usage it is an excellent hack (if your compiler is good enough), but IMHO still a hack on a language defect.
<end digression>
What I propose is to solve the issue according to the original intent, which is also what users expect and all compilers that I know of already do. Or, in practice, we would have a rule that exists only as words in a standard document.
PS: I've sent a copy of this to Mr. Adamczyk to clarify an important doubt that occurred to me while writing this reply:
if no definition is provided for an integral static const data member is that member an object? Paragraph 1.8/1 seems to say no, and in fact it's difficult to think it is an object without assuming/pretending that a region of storage exists for it (an object *is* a region of storage according to the standard).
I would think that when no definition is required we have to assume that it could be a non-object. In that case there's nothing in 3.2 which says what 'used' means for such an entity and the current wording would thus be defective. Also, since the name of the member is an lvalue and 3.10/2 says an lvalue refers to an object we would have another problem.
OTOH the standard could pretend it is always an object (though the compiler can optimize it away) and in this case it should probably make a special case for it in 3.2/2.
Notes from the March 2004 meeting:
We sort of like this proposal, but we don't feel it has very high priority. We're not going to spend time discussing it, but if we get drafting for wording we'll review it.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change the first two sentences of 3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 2 from:
An expression is potentially evaluated unless it appears where an integral constant expression is required (see 5.19 expr.const), is the operand of the sizeof operator (5.3.3 expr.sizeof), or is the operand of the typeid operator and the expression does not designate an lvalue of polymorphic class type (5.2.8 expr.typeid). An object or non-overloaded function is used if its name appears in a potentially-evaluated expression.
to
An expression that is the operand of the sizeof operator (5.3.3 expr.sizeof) is unevaluated, as is an expression that is the operand of the typeid operator if it is not an lvalue of a polymorphic class type (5.2.8 expr.typeid); all other expressions are potentially evaluated. An object or non-overloaded function whose name appears as a potentially-evaluated expression is used, unless it is an object that satisfies the requirements for appearing in an integral constant expression (5.19 expr.const) and the lvalue-to-rvalue conversion (4.1 conv.lval) is immediately applied.
Change the first sentence of 9.4.2 class.static.data paragraph 2 as indicated:
If a static data member is of const integral or const enumeration type, its declaration in the class definition can specify a constant-initializerwhichwhose constant-expression shall be an integral constant expression (5.19 expr.const).
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
Section 9.6 class.bit paragraph 4 needs to be more specific about the signedness of bit fields of enum type. How much leeway does an implementation have in choosing the signedness of a bit field? In particular, does the phrase "large enough to hold all the values of the enumeration" mean "the implementation decides on the signedness, and then we see whether all the values will fit in the bit field", or does it require the implementation to make the bit field signed or unsigned if that's what it takes to make it "large enough"?
(See also issue 172.)
Note (March, 2005): Clark Nelson observed that there is variation among implementations on this point.
Notes from April, 2005 meeting:
Although implementations enjoy a great deal of latitude in handling bit-fields, it was deemed more user-friendly to ensure that the example in paragraph 4 will work by requiring implementations to use an unsigned underlying type if the enumeration type has no negative values. (If the implementation is allowed to choose a signed representation for such bit-fields, the comparison against TRUE will be false.)
In addition, it was observed that there is an apparent circularity between 7.2 dcl.enum paragraph 7 and 9.6 class.bit paragraph 4 that should be resolved.
Proposed resolution (April, 2006):
Replace 7.2 dcl.enum paragraph 7, deleting the embedded footnote 85, with the following:
For an enumeration where emin is the smallest enumerator and emax is the largest, the values of the enumeration are the values in the range bmin to bmax, defined as follows: Let K be 1 for a two's complement representation and 0 for a one's complement or sign-magnitude representation. bmax is the smallest value greater than or equal to max(|emin|-K,|emax|) and equal to 2M-1, where M is a non-negative integer. bmin is zero if emin is non-negative and -(bmax+K) otherwise. The size of the smallest bit-field large enough to hold all the values of the enumeration type is max(M,1) if bmin is zero and M+1 otherwise. It is possible to define an enumeration that has values not defined by any of its enumerators.
Add the indicated text to the second sentence of 9.6 class.bit paragraph 4:
If the value of an enumerator is stored into a bit-field of the same enumeration type and the number of bits in the bit-field is large enough to hold all the values of that enumeration type (7.2 dcl.enum), the original enumerator value and the value of the bit-field shall compare equal.
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
Issue 298, recently approved, affirms that cv-qualified class types can be used as nested-name-specifiers. Should the same be true for base-specifiers?
Rationale (April, 2005):
The resolution of issue 298 added new text to 9.1 class.name paragraph 5 making it clear that a typedef that names a cv-qualified class type is a class-name. Because the definition of base-specifier simply refers to class-name, it is already the case that cv-qualified class types are permitted as base-specifiers.
Additional notes (June, 2005):
It's not completely clear what it means to have a cv-qualified type as a base-specifier. The original proposed resolution for issue 298 said that “the cv-qualifiers are ignored,” but that wording is not in the resolution that was ultimately approved.
If the cv-qualifiers are not ignored, does that mean that the base-class subobject should be treated as always similarly cv-qualified, regardless of the cv-qualification of the derived-class lvalue used to access the base-class subobject? For instance:
typedef struct B {
void f();
void f() const;
int i;
} const CB;
struct D: CB { };
void g(D* dp) {
dp->f(); // which B::f?
dp->i = 3; // permitted?
}
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 9.1 class.name paragraph 5 as indicated:
A typedef-name (7.1.3 dcl.typedef) that names a class type, or a cv-qualified version thereof, is also aclass-name, butclass-name. If a typedef-name that names a cv-qualified class type is used where a class-name is required, the cv-qualifiers are ignored. A typedef-name shall not be used as the identifier in a class-head.
Delete 7.1.3 dcl.typedef paragraph 8:
[Note: if the typedef-name is used where a class-name (or enum-name) is required, the program is ill-formed. For example,
typedef struct { S(); // error: requires a return type because S is // an ordinary member function, not a constructor } S;—end note]
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
The proposed resolution for issue 45 inserts the following sentence after 11 class.access paragraph 1:
A member of a class can also access all names as the class of which it is a member.
I don't think that this is correctly constructed English. I see two possibilities:
This is a typo, and the correct change is:
A member of a class can also access all names of the class of which it is a member.
The intent is something more like:
A member of a nested class can also access all names accessible by any other member of the class of which it is a member.
[Note: this was editorially corrected at the time defect resolutions were being incorporated into the Working Paper to read, “...can also access all the names declared in the class of which it is a member,” which is essentially the same as the preceding option 1.]
I would prefer to use the language proposed for 11.8 class.access.nest:
A nested class is a member and as such has the same access rights as any other member.
A second problem is with the text in 11.4 class.friend paragraph 2:
[Note: this means that access to private and protected
names is also granted to member functions of the friend class (as
if the functions were each friends) and to the static data member
definitions of the friend class. This also means that private and
protected type names from the class granting friendship can be
used in the base-clause of a nested class of the friend
class. However, the declarations of members of classes nested
within the friend class cannot access the names of private and
protected members from the class granting friendship. Also,
because the base-clause of the friend class is not part of
its member declarations, the base-clause of the friend
class cannot access the names of the private and protected
members from the class granting friendship. For example,
class A {
class B { };
friend class X;
};
class X : A::B { // ill-formed: A::B cannot be accessed
// in the base-clause for X
A::B mx; // OK: A::B used to declare member of X
class Y: A::B { // OK: A::B used to declare member of X
A::B my; // ill-formed: A::B cannot be accessed
// to declare members of nested class of X
};
};
—end note]
This seems to be an oversight. The proposed change to 11.8 class.access.nest paragraph 1 would appear to have eliminated the restrictions on nested class access. However, at least one compiler (gcc 3.4.3) doesn't appear to take my view, and continues with the restrictions on access by classes within a friend class, while implementing the rest of the resolution of issue 45.
Note (March, 2005):
Andreas Hommel: I think issue 45 requires an additional change in 9.7 class.nest paragraph 4:
Like a member function, a friend function (11.4 class.friend) defined within a nested class is in the lexical scope of that class; it obeys the same rules for name binding as a static member function of that class (9.4 class.static) and has no special access rights to members of an enclosing class.
I believe the “no special access rights” language should be removed.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 372.
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
I don't know the reason for this distinction, but it seems to be surprising that Base::A is legal and D is illegal in this example:
class D;
class Base
{
class A;
class B;
friend class D;
};
class Base::B
{
};
class Base::A : public Base::B // OK because of issue 45
{
};
class D : public Base::B // illegal because of 11.4p4
{
};
Shouldn't this be consistent (either way)?
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
In discussing issue 372, the CWG decided that access in the base-specifiers of a class should be the same as for its members, and that resolution will apply to friend declarations, as well.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 372.
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
Taken literally, 14 temp paragraph 2 does not permit operator functions to be templates:
In a function template declaration, the declarator-id shall be a template-name (i.e., not a template-id).
and, in
Issue 301 considered and rejected the idea of changing the definition of template-name to include operator-function-ids and conversion-function-ids. Either that decision should be reconsidered or the various references in the text to template-name should be examined to determine if they should also mention the non-identifier possibilities for function template names.
Proposed resolution (April, 2006):
This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 301.
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
The grammar for a template-name is:
That's not right; consider:
template <class T> T operator+(const T&, const T&);
template <> S operator+<S>(const S&, const S&);
This is ill-formed according to the standard, since operator+ is not a template-name.
Suggested resolution:
I think the right rule is
John Spicer adds that there's some question about whether conversion functions should be included, as they cannot have template argument lists.
Notes from 4/02 meeting:
If the change is made as a syntax change, we'll need a semantic restriction to avoid operator+<int> as a class. Clark Nelson will work on a compromise proposal -- not the minimal change to the syntax proposed, not the maximal change either.
Clark Nelson (April 2003):
The proposed solution (adding operator-function-id as an alternative for template-name) would have a large impact on the language described by the grammar. Specifically, for example, operator+<int> would become a syntactically valid class-name.
On the other hand, a change with (I believe) exactly the desired effect on the language accepted, would be to modify operator-function-id itself:
(Steve Adamczyk: this change was already made by issue 38 and is in TC1.)
Then there is the first sentence of 14.2 temp.names paragraph 3:
After name lookup (3.4 basic.lookup) finds that a name is a template-name, if this name is followed by a <, the < is always taken as the beginning of a template-argument-list and never as a name followed by the less-than operator.
This description seems to be adequate for names of class templates. As far as I can tell, the only ambiguity it resolves is from something that starts with new X <, in the scope of a class template X. But as far as I can tell is already inadequate for names of function templates, and is even worse for operator function templates.
Probably < should always be interpreted as introducing a template-argument-list if any member of the overload set is a function template. After all, function pointers are very rarely compared for ordering, and it's not clear what other rule might be workable.
I'm inclined to propose the simplest rule possible for operator-function-ids: if one is followed by <, then what follows is interpreted as a template-argument-list, unconditionally. Of course, if no template for that operator has been declared, then there's an error.
Also, note that if the operator in question is < or <<, it is possible to run into a problem similar to the famous >> nested template argument list closing delimiter problem. However, since in this case (at least) one of the < characters has a radically different interpretation than the other, and for other reasons as well, this is unlikely to be nearly as much of a practical problem as the >> problem.
Notes from April 2003 meeting:
We felt that the operator functions should not be special-cased. They should be treated like any other name.
September 2003:
Clark Nelson has provided the changes in N1490=03-0073.
Notes from October 2003 meeting:
We reviewed Clark Nelson's N1490. Clark will revise it and introduce a new syntax term for an identifier or the name of an operator function.
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The CWG suggested a new approach to resolving this issue: the existing term template-id will be renamed to class-template-id, the term template-id will be defined to include operator functions with template arguments, and any current uses of template-id (such as in the definition of elaborated-type-specifier) where an operator function is not appropriate will be changed to refer to class-template-id.
Proposed resolution (April, 2006):
As specified in document J16/05-0156 = WG21 N1896, except that:
In change 9 (3.4.5 basic.lookup.classref), omit the change from “entire postfix-expression” to “nested-name-specifier.”
In change a (3.4.3.1 class.qual paragraph 1, third bullet), omit the change from “entire postfix-expression” to “qualified-id.”
In change b (3.4.3.2 namespace.qual paragraph 1), omit the change from “entire postfix-expression” to “qualified-id.”
(Some of these omitted changes are addressed by issue 562.)
(This resolution also resolves issue 534.)
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
For the same reasons that issue 382 proposes for relaxation of the requirements on typename, it would make sense to allow the ::template disambiguator outside of templates.
See also issues 11, 30, 96, and 109.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 14.2 temp.names paragraph 5 as indicated:
If a name prefixed by the keyword template is not the name of a template, the program is ill-formed. [Note: the keyword template may not be applied to non-template members of class templates. —end note]Furthermore, names of member templates shall not be prefixed by the keyword template if the postfix-expression or qualified-id does not appear in the scope of a template.[Note: just as is the case with the typename prefix, the template prefix is allowed in cases where it is not strictly necessary; i.e., when the nested-name-specifier or the expression on the left of the -> or ., or the nested-name-specifieris not dependent on a template-parameter, or the use does not appear in the scope of a template. —end note]
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
I'm not really sure what the standard says about this. Personally, I'd like for it to be ill-formed, but I can't find any words that I can interpret to say so.
template<class T>
class X
{
protected:
typedef T Type;
};
template<class T>
class Y
{
};
template<class T,
template<class> class T1,
template<class> class T2>
class Z:
public T2<typename T1<T>::Type>,
public T1<T>
{
};
Z<int, X, Y> z;
John Spicer: I don't think the standard really addresses this case. There is wording about access checking of things used as template arguments, but that doesn't address accessing members of the template argument type (or template) from within the template.
This example is similar, but does not use template template arguments.
class X {
private:
struct Type {};
};
template <class T> struct A {
typename T::Type t;
};
A<X> ax;
This gets an error from most compilers, though the standard is probably mute on this as well. An error makes sense -- if there is no error, there is a hole in the access checking. (The special rule about no access checks on template parameters is not a hole, because the access is checked on the type passed in as an argument. But when you look up something in the scope of a template parameter type, you need to check the access to the member found.)
The logic in the template template parameter case should be similar: anytime you look up something in a template-dependent class, the member's access must be checked, because it could be different for different template instances.
Proposed Resolution (October 2002):
Change the last sentence of 14.3 temp.arg paragraph 3 from:
For a template-argument of class type, the template definition has no special access rights to the inaccessible members of the template argument type.to:
For a template-argument that is a class type or a class template, the
template definition has no special access rights to the members
of the template-argument. [Example:
template <template <class TT> class T> class A {
typename T<int>::S s;
};
template <class U> class B {
private:
struct S { /* ... */ };
};
A<B> b; // ill-formed, A has no access to B::S
-- end example]
Daniel Frey posts on comp.std.c++ in July 2003: I just read DR 372 and I think that the problem presented is not really discussed/solved properly. Consider this example:
class A {
protected:
typedef int N;
};
template< typename T >
class B
{};
template< typename U >
class C : public U, public B< typename U::N >
{};
C< A > x;
The question is: If C is derived from A as above, is it allowed to access A::N before the classes opening '{'?
The main problem is that you need to access U's protected parts in C's base-clause. This pattern is common when using policies, Andrei's Loki library was bitten by it as he tried to make some parts of the policies 'protected' but some compilers rejected the code. They were right to reject it, I think it's 11.4 class.friend/2 that applies here and prevents the code above to be legal, although it addresses a different and reasonable example. To me, it seems wrong to reject the code as it is perfectly reasonable to write such stuff. The questions are:
Steve Adamczyk: In other words, the point of the issue is over what range access derived from base class specifiers is granted, and whether any part of that range is the base specifier list itself, either the parts afterwards or the whole base specifier list. (Clark Nelson confirms this is what he was asking with the original question.) Personally, I find it somewhat disturbing that access might arrive incrementally; I'd prefer that the access happen all at once, at the opening brace of the class.
Notes from October 2003 meeting:
We decided it makes sense to delay the access checking for the base class specifiers until the opening brace of the class is seen. In other words, the base specifiers will be checked using the full access available for the class, and the order of the base classes is not significant in that determination. The implementors present all said they already had code to handle accumulation of delayed access checks, because it is already needed in other contexts.
Proposed resolution (October, 2004):
Change the last sentence of 14.3 temp.arg paragraph 3 as indicated:
For a template-argumentofthat is a class type or a class template, the template definition has no special access rights to theinaccessiblemembers of thetemplate argument typetemplate-argument. [Example:template <template <class TT> class T> class A { typename T<int>::S s; }; template <class U> class B { private: struct S { /* ... */ }; }; A<B> b; // ill-formed, A has no access to B::S—end example]
Insert the following as a new paragraph after the final paragraph of 11 class.access:
The access of names in a class base-specifier-list are checked at the end of the list after all base classes are known. [Example:
class A { protected: typedef int N; }; template<typename T> class B {}; template<typename U> class C : public B<typename U::N>, public U {}; C<A> x; // OK: A is a base class so A::N in B<A::N> is accessible
—end example]
Notes from the April, 2005 meeting:
The 10/2004 resolution is not sufficient to implement the CWG's intent to allow these examples: clause 11 class.access paragraph 1 grants protected access only to “members and friends” of derived classes, not to their base-specifiers. The resolution needs to be extended to say either that access in base-specifiers is determined as if they were members of the class being defined or that access is granted to the class as an entity, including its base-specifiers. See also issue 500, which touches on the same issue and should be resolved in the same way.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change the second bullet of 11 class.access paragraph 1 as indicated:
protected; that is, its name can be used only by
members and friends of the class in which it is declared, and by
members and friends of classes derived from this class by
classes derived from that class, and by their friends (see
11.5
class.protected).
Change 11 class.access paragraph 2 as indicated:
A member of a class can also access all the namesdeclared in the class of which it is a memberto which the class has access.
Change 11 class.access paragraph 6 as indicated:
All access controls in clause 11 class.access affect the ability to access a class member name from a particular scope.The access control for names used in the definition of a class member that appears outside of the member's class definition is done as if the entire member definition appeared in the scope of the member's class.For purposes of access control, the base-specifiers of a class and the definitions of class members that appear outside of the class definition are considered to be within the scope of that class. In particular...
Change the example and commentary in 11 class.access paragraphs 6-7 as indicated:
[Example:
class A { typedef int I; // private member I f(); friend I g(I); static I x; protected: struct B { }; }; A::I A::f () { return 0; } A::I g(A::I p = A::x); A::I g(A::I p) { return 0; } A::I A::x = 0; struct D: A::B, A { };Here, all the uses of A::I are well-formed because A::f and A::x are members of class A and g is a friend of class A. This implies, for example, that access checking on the first use of A::I must be deferred until it is determined that this use of A::I is as the return type of a member of class A. Similarly, the use of A::B as a base-specifier is well-formed because D is derived from A, so access checking of base-specifiers must be deferred until the entire base-specifier-list has been seen. —end example]
In 11.4 class.friend paragraph 2, replace the following text:
Declaring a class to be a friend implies that the names of private and protected members from the class granting friendship can be accessed in declarations of members of the befriended class. [Note: this means that access to private and protected names is also granted to member functions of the friend class (as if the functions were each friends) and to the static data member definitions of the friend class. This also means that private and protected type names from the class granting friendship can be used in the base-clause of a nested class of the friend class. However, the declarations of members of classes nested within the friend class cannot access the names of private and protected members from the class granting friendship. Also, because the base-clause of the friend class is not part of its member declarations, the base-clause of the friend class cannot access the names of the private and protected members from the class granting friendship. For example,
class A { class B { }; friend class X; }; class X: A::B { // ill-formed: A::B cannot be accessed // in the base-clause for X A::B mx; // OK: A::B used to declare member of X class Y: A::B { // OK: A::B used to declare member of X A::B my; // ill-formed: A::B cannot be accessed // to declare members of nested class of X }; };—end note]
with:
Declaring a class to be a friend implies that the names of private and protected members from the class granting friendship can be accessed in the base-specifiers and member declarations of the befriended class. [Example:
class A { class B { }; friend class X; }; struct X: A::B { // OK: A::B accessible to friend A::B mx; // OK: A::B accessible to member of friend class Y { A::B my; // OK: A::B accessible to nested member of friend }; };—end example]
Change the last sentence of 14.3 temp.arg paragraph 3 as indicated:
For a template-argument
ofthat is a class type or a class template, the template definition has no special access rights to theinaccessiblemembers of thetemplate argument type.template-argument. [Example:template <template <class TT> class T> class A { typename T<int>::S s; }; template <class U> class B { private: struct S { /* ... */ }; }; A<B> b; // ill-formed, A has no access to B::S—end example]
Change 9.7 class.nest paragraph 4 as indicated:
Like a member function, a friend function (11.4 class.friend) defined within a nested class is in the lexical scope of that class; it obeys the same rules for name binding as a static member function of that class (9.4 class.static), but itandhas no special access rights to members of an enclosing class.
(Note: this resolution also resolves issues 494 and 500.)
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
According to 14.5.4 temp.class.spec paragraph 1,
If a template is partially specialized then that partial specialization shall be declared before the first use of that partial specialization that would cause an implicit instantiation to take place, in every translation unit in which such a use occurs; no diagnostic is required.
This leaves the impression that an explicit instantiation of the primary template may precede the declaration of an applicable partial specialization. Is the following example well-formed?
template<typename T> class X{
public:
void foo(){};
};
template class X<void *>;
template<typename T> class X<T*>{
public:
void baz();
};
void bar() {
X<void *> x;
x.foo();
}
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Replace the last sentence of 14.5.4 temp.class.spec paragraph 1:
If a template is partially specialized then that partial specialization shall be declared before the first use of that partial specialization that would cause an implicit instantiation to take place, in every translation unit in which such a use occurs; no diagnostic is required.
with:
A partial specialization shall be declared before the first use of a class template specialization that would make use of the partial specialization as the result of an implicit or explicit instantiation in every translation unit in which such a use occurs; no diagnostic is required.
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
Implementations vary in their treatment of the following code:
struct A {
int foo_;
};
template <typename T> struct B: public A { };
template <typename T> struct C: B<T> {
int foo() {
return A::foo_; // #1
}
};
int f(C<int>* p) {
return p->foo();
}
According to one analysis, because the expression A::foo_ on line #1 is non-dependent, it must be analyzed in the definition context. It that context, it violates the restrictions of 9.2 class.mem paragraph 10 on how the name of a nonstatic data member of a class can be used and thus should be treated as an error.
On the other hand, the description of the transformation of an id-expression into a class member access expression (9.3.1 class.mfct.nonstatic paragraph 3) does not have any special treatment of templates; when C<int>::foo() is instantiated, the reference to A::foo_ turns out to be to a base class member and is thus transformed into (*this).A::foo_ and is thus not an error.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 9.3.1 class.mfct.nonstatic paragraph 3 as indicated:
When an id-expression (5.1 expr.prim) that is not part of a class member access syntax (5.2.5 expr.ref) and not used to form a pointer to member (5.3.1 expr.unary.op) is used in the body of a non-static member function of class X or used in the mem-initializer for a constructor of class X, if name lookup (3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual) resolves the name in the id-expression to a non-static non-type member ofclass X or of a base class of Xsome class C, the id-expression is transformed into a class member access expression (5.2.5 expr.ref) using (*this) (9.3.2 class.this) as the postfix-expression to the left of the . operator. [Note: If C is not X or a base class of X, the class member access expression is ill-formed. —end note]The member name then refers to the member of the object for which the function is called.Similarly during name lookup...
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
The description of dependent function calls in 14.6.2 temp.dep paragraph 1 applies only to identifiers in postfix-notation function calls and to operator notation calls for operator functions:
In an expression of the form:
postfix-expression ( expression-listopt )
where the postfix-expression is an identifier, the identifier denotes a dependent name if and only if any of the expressions in the expression-list is a type-dependent expression (14.6.2.2 temp.dep.expr). If an operand of an operator is a type-dependent expression, the operator also denotes a dependent name.
It would appear from the related passage in 14.6.4.2 temp.dep.candidate paragraph 1 that the description of postfix-notation function calls should apply to all unqualified-ids that are not template-ids, including operator-function-ids, not just to identifiers:
For a function call that depends on a template parameter, if the function name is an unqualified-id but not a template-id, the candidate functions are found...
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 14.6.2 temp.dep paragraph 1 as indicated:
...In an expression of the form:
postfix-expression ( expression-listopt )
where the postfix-expression is an
identifierunqualified-id but not a template-id, theidentifierunqualified-id denotes a dependent name if and only if any of the expressions in the expression-list is a type-dependent expression (14.6.2.2 temp.dep.expr)...
Change 14.6.4.2 temp.dep.candidate paragraph 1 as indicated:
For a function call that depends on a template parameter, if the function name is an unqualified-id but not a template-id, or if the function is called using operator notation, the candidate functions are found using the usual lookup rules (3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual, 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep) except that...
(See also issue 561.)
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
Consider the following example:
char* cmdline3_[1] = {};
template<class charT>
void func(const charT* const argv[]) {}
int main()
{
func(cmdline3_);
}
In terms of the process described in 14.8.2.1 temp.deduct.call, P is const charT* const * and A is char*[1]. According to the first bullet in paragraph 2, the type used in deduction is not A but “the pointer type produced by the array-to-pointer standard conversion.”
According to paragraph 4,
In general, the deduction process attempts to find template argument values that will make the deduced A identical to A (after the type A is transformed as described above). However, there are three cases that allow a difference:
In this example, the deduced A is not identical to the transformed A, because the deduced A has additional cv-qualification, so the three exceptions must be examined to see if they apply. The only one that might apply is the second bullet of paragraph 4:
- A can be another pointer or pointer to member type that can be converted to the deduced A via a qualification conversion (4.4 conv.qual).
However, A is not a pointer type but an array type; this provision does not apply and deduction fails.
It has been argued that the phrase “after the type A is transformed as described above” should be understood to apply to the A in the three bullets of paragraph 4. If that is the intent, the wording should be changed to make that explicit.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Add the indicated words to 14.8.2.1 temp.deduct.call paragraph 4:
In general, the deduction process attempts to find template argument values that will make the deduced A identical to A (after the type A is transformed as described above). However, there are three cases that allow a difference:
If the original P is a reference type, the deduced A (i.e., the type referred to by the reference) can be more cv-qualified than the transformed A.
The transformed A can be another pointer or pointer to member type that can be converted to the deduced A via a qualification conversion (4.4 conv.qual).
If P is a class, and P has the form template-id, then the transformed A can be a derived class of the deduced A. Likewise, if P is a pointer to a class of the form template-id, the transformed A can be a pointer to a derived class pointed to by the deduced A.
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
14.8.2.5 temp.deduct.type paragraph 5 reads:
The non-deduced contexts are:
The nested-name-specifier of a type that was specified using a qualified-id.
A non-type template argument or an array bound that is an expression that references a template parameter.
A template parameter used in the parameter type of a function parameter that has a default argument that is being used in the call for which argument deduction is being done.
A function parameter for which argument deduction cannot be done because the associated function argument is a function, or a set of overloaded functions (13.4 over.over), and one or more of the following apply:
more than one function matches the function parameter type (resulting in an ambiguous deduction), or
no function matches the function parameter type, or
the set of functions supplied as an argument contains one or more function templates.
An array bound that is an expression that references a template-parameter.
There are two problems with this list:
The last bullet is redundant with the second bullet. This appears to have been the result of applying the resolutions of issues 70 and 352 independently instead of in coordination.
The second bullet appears to be contradicted by the statement in paragraph 8 saying that an argument can be deduced if P and A have the forms type[i] and template-name<i>.
The intent of the wording in bullet 2 appears to have been that deduction cannot be done if the template parameter is a sub-expression of the template argument or array bound expression and that it can be done if it is the complete expression, but the current wording does not say that very clearly. (Similar wording also appears in 14.6.2.1 temp.dep.type paragraph 3 and 14.8.2.5 temp.deduct.type paragraph 14.)
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 14.8.2.5 temp.deduct.type paragraph 5 as indicated:
The non-deduced contexts are:
The nested-name-specifier of a type that was specified using a qualified-id.
A non-type template argument or an array bound
that is an expression thatin either of which a subexpression references a template parameter.A template parameter used in the parameter type of a function parameter that has a default argument that is being used in the call for which argument deduction is being done.
A function parameter for which argument deduction cannot be done because the associated function argument is a function, or a set of overloaded functions (13.4 over.over), and one or more of the following apply:
more than one function matches the function parameter type (resulting in an ambiguous deduction), or
no function matches the function parameter type, or
the set of functions supplied as an argument contains one or more function templates.
An array bound that is an expression that references a template-parameter.
Change 14.8.2.5 temp.deduct.type paragraph 14 as indicated:
If, in the declaration of a function template with a non-type template parameter, the non-type template parameter is used inan expressiona subexpression in the function parameter list, the expression is a non-deduced context as specified above...
Change 14.6.2.1 temp.dep.type paragraph 3 as indicated:
A template argument that is equivalent to a template parameter (i.e., has the same constant value or the same type as the template parameter) can be used in place of that template parameter in a reference to the current instantiation. In the case of a non-type template argument, the argument must have been given the value of the template parameter and not an expressioninvolvingthat contains the template parameter as a subexpression...
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
Mike Miller: In fact, now that I've looked more closely, that appears not to be the case. (At least, it's not the error I get when I compile his example.) Here's a minimal extract (without the inflammatory using-directive :-) that illustrates what I think is going on:
template <typename _Iterator>
struct iterator_traits {
typedef typename _Iterator::difference_type difference_type;
};
template <typename _InputIterator>
inline typename iterator_traits<_InputIterator>::difference_type
distance(_InputIterator, _InputIterator);
double distance(const int&, const int&);
void f() {
int i = 0;
int j = 0;
double d = distance(i, j);
}
What happens is that iterator_traits<int> is instantiated as part of type deduction for the function template distance, and the instantiation fails. (Note that it can't be instantiation of distance<int>, as I had originally posited, because in this case only a declaration, not a definition, of that template is in scope.)
John Spicer: Yes, I believe that is what is going on.
Mike Miller: I seem to recall that there was some discussion of questions related to this during the core meetings in Oxford. I think Steve Adamczyk said something to the effect that it's infeasible to suppress all instantiation errors during template type deduction and simply call any such errors a deduction failure. (I could be misremembering, and I could be misapplying that comment to this situation.)
John Spicer: Regardless of other conditions in which this may apply, I don't think it would be reasonable for compilers to have to do "speculative instantiations" during template argument deduction. One class instantiation could kick off a series of other instantiations, etc.
Mike Miller: I don't see anything in the Standard that tells me whether it's legitimate or not to report an error in this case. I hope John or another template expert can enlighten me on that.
John Spicer: My opinion is that, because this case is not among those enumerated that cause deduction failure (rather than being ill-formed) that reporting an error is the right thing to do.
Mike Miller: I am still interested, though, in the question of why 14.8.3 temp.over says that viable function template specializations are instantiated, even if they are not selected by overload resolution.
John Spicer: I believe the wording in 14.8.3 temp.over is incorrect. I researched this and found that a change was made during the clause 14 restructuring that was incorporated in March of 1996. The prior wording was "the deduced template arguments are used to generate a single template function". This was changed to "deduced template arguments are used to instantiate a single function template specialization". I believe this resulted from what was basically a global replace of "generate" with "instantiate" and of "template function" with "function template specialization". In this case, the substitution changed the meaning. This paragraph needs reworking.
Proposed resolution (April, 2006):
Change 14.8.3 temp.over paragraph 1 as indicated:
...For each function template, if the argument deduction and checking succeeds, the template-arguments (deduced and/or explicit) are used toinstantiatesynthesize the declaration of a single function template specialization which is added to the candidate functions set to be used in overload resolution. If, for a given function template, argument deduction fails, no such function is added to the set of candidate functions for that template. The complete set of candidate functions includes all thefunction templates instantiated in this waysynthesized declarations and all of the non-template overloaded functions of the same name. Thefunction template specializationssynthesized declarations are treated like any other functions in the remainder of overload resolution, except as explicitly noted in 13.3.3 over.match.best.
[Voted into WP at the October, 2006 meeting.]
The motivation for this issue is a desire to write portable programs which will work with any conforming implementation.
The C++ Standard (16.2 cpp.include) provides two forms of #include directives, with the <...> form being described (16.2 cpp.include paragraph 2) as "for a header", and the "..." form (16.2 cpp.include paragraph 3) as for "the source file" identified between the delimiters. When the standard uses the term "header", it often appears to be limiting the term to apply to the Standard Library headers only. Users of the standard almost always use the term "header" more broadly, to cover all #included source files, but particularly those containing interface declarations.
Headers, including source files, can be categorized according to their origin and usage:
Existing practice varies widely, but it is fairly easy to find users advocating:
Do any of the practices A, B, or C result in programs which can be rejected by a conforming implementation?
The first defect is that readers of the standard have not been able to reach consensus on the answers to the above question.
A second possible defect is that if A, B, or C can be rejected by a conforming implementation, then the standard should be changed because would mean there is a wide variance between the standard and existing practice.
Matt Austern: I really only see two positions:
I agree that the standard should clarify which of those two is the case (I imagine it'll hinge on finding one crucual sentence that either says "implementation defined" or "unspecified"), but from the standpoint of portability I don't see much difference between the two. I claim that, with either of those two interpretations, using #include <foo> is already nonportable.
(Of course, I claim that almost anything having to do with headers, including the #include "foo" form, is also nonportable. In practice there's wide variation in how compilers handle paths, especially relative paths.)
Beman Dawes: The whole issue can be resolved by replacing "header" with "header or source file" in 16.2 cpp.include paragraph 2. That will bring the standard into alignment with existing practice by both users and implementations. The "header and/or source file" wording is used at least three other places in the standard where otherwise there might be some confusion.
John Skaller: In light of Andrew Koenig's comments, this doesn't appear to be the case, since the mapping of include names to file names is implementation defined, and therefore source file inclusion cannot be made portable within the ISO C/C++ standards (since that provision obviously cannot be removed).
A possible idea is to create a binding standard, outside the C/C++ ISO Standards, which specifies not only the path lookup mechanism but also the translation from include names to file names. Clearly that is OS dependent, encoding dependent, etc, but there is no reason not to have a binding standard for Unix, Windows, etc, and specify these bindings in such a way that copying directories from one OS to the other can result in programs working on both OS's.
Andy Koenig: An easier solution might be to specify a (presumably unbounded, or bounded only by implementation capacity) collection of header-file names that every implementation must make it possible for programs to access somehow, without specifying exactly how.
Notes from October 2002 meeting:
This was discussed at some length. While there was widespread agreement that such inclusion is inherently implementation-dependent, we agreed to try to add wording that would make it clear that implementations are permitted (but not required) to allow inclusion of files using the <...> form of #include.
Proposed resolution (April, 2005):
Change 16.2 cpp.include paragraph 7 from:
[Example: The most common uses of #include preprocessing
directives are as in the following:
#include <stdio.h>
#include "myprog.h"
—end example]
to:
[Note: Although an implementation may provide a mechanism for
making arbitrary source files available to the < >
search, in general programmers should use the < > form
for headers provided with the implementation, and the " "
form for sources outside the control of the implementation. For
instance:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include "usefullib.h"
#include "myprog.h"
—end note]
Notes from October, 2005 meeting:
Some doubt was expressed as to whether the benefit of this non-normative clarification outweighs the overall goal of synchronizing clause 16 with the corresponding text in the C99 Standard. As a result, this issue is being left in “review” status to allow further discussion.
Additional notes (October, 2006):
WG14 takes no position on this change.
[Voted into WP at April, 2006 meeting.]
The standard uses “most derived object” in some places (for example, 1.3.3 defns.dynamic.type, 5.3.5 expr.delete) to refer to objects of both class and non-class type. However, 1.8 intro.object only formally defines it for objects of class type.
Possible fix: Change the wording in 1.8 intro.object paragraph 4 from
an object of a most derived class type is called a most derived object
to
an object of a most derived class type, or of non-class type, is called a most derived object
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Add the indicated words to 1.8 intro.object paragraph 4:
If a complete object, a data member (9.2 class.mem), or an array element is of class type, its type is considered the most derived class, to distinguish it from the class type of any base class subobject; an object of a most derived class type, or of a non-class type, is called a most derived object.
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
Should this program do what its author obviously expects? As far as I can tell, the standard says that the point of instantiation for Fib<n-1>::Value is the same as the point of instantiation as the enclosing specialization, i.e., Fib<n>::Value. What in the standard actually says that these things get initialized in the right order?
template<int n>
struct Fib { static int Value; };
template <>
int Fib<0>::Value = 0;
template <>
int Fib<1>::Value = 1;
template<int n>
int Fib<n>::Value = Fib<n-1>::Value + Fib<n-2>::Value;
int f ()
{
return Fib<40>::Value;
}
John Spicer: My opinion is that the standard does not specify the behavior of this program. I thought there was a core issue related to this, but I could not find it. The issue that I recall proposed tightening up the static initialization rules to make more cases well defined.
Your comment about point of instantiation is correct, but I don't think that really matters. What matters is the order of execution of the initialization code at execution time. Instantiations don't really live in "translation units" according to the standard. They live in "instantiation units", and the handling of instantiation units in initialization is unspecified (which should probably be another core issue). See 2.1 lex.phases paragraph 8.
Notes from October 2002 meeting:
We discussed this and agreed that we really do mean the the order is unspecified. John Spicer will propose wording on handling of instantiation units in initialization.
Proposed resolution (April 2003):
TC1 contains the following text in 3.6.2 basic.start.init paragraph 1:
Objects with static storage duration defined in namespace scope in the same translation unit and dynamically initialized shall be initialized in the order in which their definition appears in the translation unit.
This was revised by issue 270 to read:
Dynamic initialization of an object is either ordered or unordered. Explicit specializations and definitions of class template static data members have ordered initialization. Other class template static data member instances have unordered initialization. Other objects defined in namespace scope have ordered initialization. Objects defined within a single translation unit and with ordered initialization shall be initialized in the order of their definitions in the translation unit. The order of initialization is unspecified for objects with unordered initialization and for objects defined in different translation units.
This addresses this issue but while reviewing this issue some additional changes were suggested for the above wording:
Dynamic initialization of an object is either ordered or unordered. Definitions of explicitly specializedExplicit specializations and definitions ofclass template static data members have ordered initialization. Other class template static data members (i.e., implicitly or explicitly instantiated specializations)instanceshave unordered initialization. Other objects defined in namespace scope have ordered initialization. Objects defined within a single translation unit and with ordered initialization shall be initialized in the order of their definitions in the translation unit. The order of initialization is unspecified for objects with unordered initialization and for objects defined in different translation units.
[Moved to DR at October 2002 meeting.]
3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 2 says that a deallocation function is "used" by a new-expression or delete-expression appearing in a potentially-evaluated expression. 3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 3 requires only that "used" functions be defined.
This wording runs afoul of the typical implementation technique for polymorphic delete-expressions in which the deallocation function is invoked from the virtual destructor of the most-derived class. The problem is that the destructor must be defined, because it's virtual, and if it contains an implicit reference to the deallocation function, the deallocation function must also be defined, even if there are no relevant new-expressions or delete-expressions in the program.
For example:
struct B { virtual ~B() { } };
struct D: B {
void operator delete(void*);
~D() { }
};
Is it required that D::operator delete(void*) be defined, even if no B or D objects are ever created or deleted?
Suggested resolution: Add the words "or if it is found by the lookup at the point of definition of a virtual destructor (12.4 class.dtor)" to the specification in 3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 2.
Notes from 04/01 meeting:
The consensus was in favor of requiring that any declared non-placement operator delete member function be defined if the destructor for the class is defined (whether virtual or not), and similarly for a non-placement operator new if a constructor is defined.
Proposed resolution (10/01):
In 3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 2, add the indicated text:
An allocation or deallocation function for a class is used by a new expression appearing in a potentially-evaluated expression as specified in 5.3.4 expr.new and 12.5 class.free. A deallocation function for a class is used by a delete expression appearing in a potentially-evaluated expression as specified in 5.3.5 expr.delete and 12.5 class.free. A non-placement allocation or deallocation function for a class is used by the definition of a constructor of that class. A non-placement deallocation function for a class is used by the definition of the destructor of that class, or by being selected by the lookup at the point of definition of a virtual destructor (12.4 class.dtor). [Footnote: An implementation is not required to call allocation and deallocation functions from constructors or destructors; however, this is a permissible implementation technique.]
[Moved to DR at October 2002 meeting.]
3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 4 has a note listing the contexts that require a class type to be complete. It does not list use as a base class as being one of those contexts.
Proposed resolution (10/01):
In 3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 4 add a new bullet at the end of the note as the next-to-last bullet:
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
Consider the following translation unit:
template<class T> struct S {
void f(union U*); // (1)
};
template<class T> void S<T>::f(union U*) {} // (2)
U *p; // (3)
Does (1) introduce U as a visible name in the surrounding namespace scope?
If not, then (2) could presumably be an error since the "union U" in that definition does not find the same type as the declaration (1).
If yes, then (3) is OK too. However, we have gone through much trouble to allow template implementations that do not pre-parse the template definitions, but requiring (1) to be visible would change that.
A slightly different case is the following:
template<typename> void f() { union U *p; }
U *q; // Should this be valid?
Notes from October 2003 meeting:
There was consensus that example 1 should be allowed. (Compilers already parse declarations in templates; even MSVC++ 6.0 accepts this case.) The vote was 7-2.
Example 2, on the other hand, is wrong; the union name goes into a block scope anyway.
Proposed resolution:
In 3.3.1 basic.scope.pdecl change the second bullet of paragraph 5 as follows:
for an elaborated-type-specifier of the formclass-key identifierif the elaborated-type-specifier is used in the decl-specifier-seq or parameter-declaration-clause of a function defined in namespace scope, the identifier is declared as a class-name in the namespace that contains the declaration; otherwise, except as a friend declaration, the identifier is declared in the smallest non-class, non-function-prototype scope that contains the declaration. [Note: These rules also apply within templates.] [Note: ...]
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
Consider the following example (inspired by a question from comp.lang.c++.moderated):
template<typename> struct B {};
template<typename T> struct D: B<D> {};
Most (all?) compilers reject this code because D is handled as a template name rather than as the injected class name.
9 class/2 says that the injected class name is "inserted into the scope of the class."
3.3.6 basic.scope.class/1 seems to be the text intended to describe what "scope of a class" means, but it assumes that every name in that scope was introduced using a "declarator". For an implicit declaration such as the injected-class name it is not clear what that means.
So my questions:
John Spicer: I do not believe the injected class name should be available in the base specifier. I think the semantics of injected class names should be as if a magic declaration were inserted after the opening "{" of the class definition. The injected class name is a member of the class and members don't exist at the point where the base specifiers are scanned.
John Spicer: I believe the 3.3.6 basic.scope.class wording should be updated to reflect the fact that not all names come from declarators.
Notes from October 2003 meeting:
We agree with John Spicer's suggested answers above.
Proposed Resolution (October 2003):
The answer to question 1 above is No and no change is required.
For question 1, change 3.3.6 basic.scope.class paragraph 1 rule 1 to:
1) The potential scope of a name declared in a class consists not only of the declarative region following the name's point of declarationdeclarator, but also of all function bodies, default arguments, and constructor ctor-initializers in that class (including such things in nested classes). The point of declaration of an injected-class-name (clause 9 class) is immediately following the opening brace of the class definition.
(Note that this change overlaps a change in issue 417.)
Also change 3.3.1 basic.scope.pdecl by adding a new paragraph 8 for the injected-class-name case:
The point of declaration for an injected-class-name (clause 9 class) is immediately following the opening brace of the class definition.
Alternatively this paragraph could be added after paragraph 5 and before the two note paragraphs (i.e. it would become paragraph 5a).
[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]
The example in 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual paragraph 3 is incorrect:
typedef int f;
struct A {
friend void f(A &);
operator int();
void g(A a) {
f(a);
}
};
Regardless of the resolution of other issues concerning the lookup
of names in friend declarations, this example is ill-formed
(the function and the typedef cannot exist in the same scope).
One possible repair of the example would be to make f a class with a constructor taking either A or int as its parameter.
(See also issues 95, 136, 138, 143, 165, and 166.)
Proposed resolution (04/01):
Change the example in 3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual paragraph 3 to read:
typedef int f;
namespace N {
struct A {
friend int f(A &);
operator int();
void g(A a) {
int i = f(a);
// f is the typedef, not the friend function:
// equivalent to int(a)
}
};
}
Delete the sentence immediately following the example:
The expression f(a) is a cast-expression equivalent to int(a).
[Moved to DR at 4/02 meeting.]
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep say, in part,
When an unqualified name is used as the postfix-expression in a function call (5.2.2 expr.call )... namespace-scope friend function declarations (11.4 class.friend ) not otherwise visible may be found... the set of declarations found by the lookup of the function name [includes] the set of declarations found in the... classes associated with the argument types.The most straightforward reading of this wording is that if a function of namespace scope (as opposed to a class member function) is declared as a friend in a class, and that class is an associated class in a function call, the friend function will be part of the overload set, even if it is not visible to normal lookup.
Consider the following example:
namespace A {
class S;
};
namespace B {
void f(A::S);
};
namespace A {
class S {
int i;
friend void B::f(S);
};
}
void g() {
A::S s;
f(s); // should find B::f(A::S)
}
This example would seem to satisfy the criteria from
3.4.2
basic.lookup.argdep
:
A::S is an associated class of the argument, and
A::S has a
friend declaration of the namespace-scope function
B::f(A::S),
so Koenig lookup should include B::f(A::S) as part of the
overload set in the call.
Another interpretation is that, instead of finding the friend declarations in associated classes, one only looks for namespace-scope functions, visible or invisible, in the namespaces of which the the associated classes are members; the only use of the friend declarations in the associated classes is to validate whether an invisible function declaration came from an associated class or not and thus whether it should be included in the overload set or not. By this interpretation, the call f(s) in the example will fail, because B::f(A::S) is not a member of namespace A and thus is not found by the lookup.
Notes from 10/99 meeting: The second interpretation is correct. The wording should be revised to make clear that Koenig lookup works by finding "invisible" declarations in namespace scope and not by finding friend declarations in associated classes.
Proposed resolution (04/01): The "associated classes" are handled adequately under this interpretation by 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep paragraph 3, which describes the lookup in the associated namespaces as including the friend declarations from the associated classes. Other mentions of the associated classes should be removed or qualified to avoid the impression that there is a lookup in those classes:
In 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep, change
When an unqualified name is used as the postfix-expression in a function call (5.2.2 expr.call), other namespaces not considered during the usual unqualified lookup (3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual) may be searched, and namespace-scope friend function declarations (11.4 class.friend) not otherwise visible may be found.
to
When an unqualified name is used as the postfix-expression in a function call (5.2.2 expr.call), other namespaces not considered during the usual unqualified lookup (3.4.1 basic.lookup.unqual) may be searched, and in those namespaces, namespace-scope friend function declarations (11.4 class.friend) not otherwise visible may be found.
In 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep paragraph 2, delete the words and classes in the following two sentences:
If the ordinary unqualified lookup of the name finds the declaration of a class member function, the associated namespacesand classesare not considered. Otherwise the set of declarations found by the lookup of the function name is the union of the set of declarations found using ordinary unqualified lookup and the set of declarations found in the namespacesand classesassociated with the argument types.
(See also issues 95, 136, 138, 139, 165, 166, and 218.)
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
Spun off from issue 384.
3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep says:
If T is a template-id, its associated namespaces and classes are the namespace in which the template is defined; for member templates, the member template's class; the namespaces and classes associated with the types of the template arguments provided for template type parameters (excluding template template parameters); the namespaces in which any template template arguments are defined; and the classes in which any member templates used as template template arguments are defined. [Note: non-type template arguments do not contribute to the set of associated namespaces. ]There is a problem with the term "is a template-id". template-id is a syntactic construct and you can't really talk about a type being a template-id. Presumably, this is intended to mean "If T is the type of a class template specialization ...".
Proposed Resolution (October 2003):
In 3.4.2 basic.lookup.argdep, paragraph 2, bullet 8, replace
If T is a template-id ...with
If T is a class template specialization ...
[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]
Can a typedef T to a cv-qualified class type be used in a qualified name T::x?
struct A { static int i; };
typedef const A CA;
int main () {
CA::i = 0; // Okay?
}
Suggested answer: Yes. All the compilers I tried accept the test case.
Proposed resolution (10/01):
In 3.4.3.1 class.qual paragraph 1 add the indicated text:
If the nested-name-specifier of a qualified-id nominates a class, the name specified after the nested-name-specifier is looked up in the scope of the class (10.2 class.member.lookup), except for the cases listed below. The name shall represent one or more members of that class or of one of its base classes (clause 10 class.derived). If the class-or-namespace-name of the nested-name-specifier names a cv-qualified class type, it nominates the underlying class (the cv-qualifiers are ignored).
Notes from 4/02 meeting:
There is a problem in that class-or-namespace-name does not include typedef names for cv-qualified class types. See 7.1.3 dcl.typedef paragraph 4:
Argument and text removed from proposed resolution (October 2002):
7.1.3 dcl.typedef paragraph 5:
Here's a good question: in this example, should X be used as a name-for-linkage-purposes (FLP name)?
typedef class { } const X;
Because a type-qualifier is parsed as a decl-specifier, it isn't possible to declare cv-qualified and cv-unqualified typedefs for a type in a single declaration. Also, of course, there's no way to declare a typedef for the cv-unqualified version of a type for which only a cv-qualified version has a name. So, in the above example, if X isn't used as the FLP name, then there can be no FLP name. Also note that a FLP name usually represents a parameter type, where top-level cv-qualifiers are usually irrelevant anyway.
Data points: for the above example, Microsoft uses X as the FLP name; GNU and EDG do not.
My recommendation: for consistency with the direction we're going on this issue, for simplicity of description (e.g., "the first class-name declared by the declaration"), and for (very slightly) increased utility, I think Microsoft has this right.
If the typedef declaration defines an unnamed class type (or enum type), the first typedef-name declared by the declaration tobehave thatclasstype(or enum type)or a cv-qualified version thereof is used to denote the class type (or enum type) for linkage purposes only (3.5 basic.link). [Example: ...
Proposed resolution (October 2002):
3.4.4 basic.lookup.elab paragraphs 2 and 3:
This sentence is deleted twice:
...If this name lookup finds a typedef-name, the elaborated-type-specifier is ill-formed....
Note that the above changes are included in N1376 as part of the resolution of issue 245.
5.1 expr.prim paragraph 7:
This is only a note, and it is at least incomplete (and quite possibly inaccurate), despite (or because of) its complexity. I propose to delete it.
... [Note: a typedef-name that names a class is a class-name (9.1 class.name).Except as the identifier in the declarator for a constructor or destructor definition outside of a class member-specification (12.1 class.ctor, 12.4 class.dtor), a typedef-name that names a class may be used in a qualified-id to refer to a constructor or destructor.]
7.1.3 dcl.typedef paragraph 4:
My first choice would have been to make this the primary statement about the equivalence of typedef-name and class-name, since the equivalence comes about as a result of a typedef declaration. Unfortunately, references to class-name point to 9.1 class.name, so it would seem that the primary statement should be there instead. To avoid the possiblity of conflicts in the future, I propose to make this a note.
[Note: A typedef-name that names a class type, or a cv-qualified version thereof, is also a class-name (9.1 class.name). If a typedef-name is usedfollowing the class-key in an elaborated-type-specifier (7.1.5.3 dcl.type.elab), or in the class-head of a class declaration (9 class), or is used as the identifier in the declarator for a constructor or destructor declaration (12.1 class.ctor, 12.4 class.dtor),to identify the subject of an elaborated-type-specifier (7.1.5.3 dcl.type.elab), class declaration (clause 9 class), constructor declaration (12.1 class.ctor), or destructor declaration (12.4 class.dtor), the program is ill-formed. ] [Example: ...
7.1.5.3 dcl.type.elab paragraph 2:
This is the only remaining (normative) statement that a typedef-name can't be used in an elaborated-type-specifier. The reference to template type-parameter is deleted by the resolution of issue 283.
... If the identifier resolves to a typedef-nameor a template type-parameter, the elaborated-type-specifier is ill-formed. [Note: ...
8 dcl.decl grammar rule declarator-id:
When I looked carefully into the statement of the rule prohibiting a typedef-name in a constructor declaration, it appeared to me that this grammar rule (inadvertently?) allows something that's always forbidden semantically.
declarator-id:
id-expression
::opt nested-name-specifieropttype-nameclass-name
9.1 class.name paragraph 5:
Unlike the prohibitions against appearing in an elaborated-type-specifier or constructor or destructor declarator, each of which was expressed more than once, the prohibition against a typedef-name appearing in a class-head was previously stated only in 7.1.3 dcl.typedef. It seems to me that that prohibition belongs here instead. Also, it seems to me important to clarify that a typedef-name that is a class-name is still a typedef-name. Otherwise, the various prohibitions can be argued around easily, if perversely ("But that isn't a typedef-name, it's a class-name; it says so right there in 9.1 class.name.")
A typedef-name (7.1.3 dcl.typedef) that names a class type or a cv-qualified version thereof is also a class-name, but shall not be usedin an elaborated-type-specifier; see also 7.1.3 dcl.typedef.as the identifier in a class-head.
12.1 class.ctor paragraph 3:
The new nonterminal references are needed to really nail down what we're talking about here. Otherwise, I'm just eliminating redundancy. (A typedef-name that doesn't name a class type is no more valid here than one that does.)
A typedef-name that names a class is a class-name (7.1.3 dcl.typedef); however, aA typedef-namethat names a classshall not be used as theidentifierclass-name in thedeclaratordeclarator-id for a constructor declaration.
12.4 class.dtor paragraph 1:
The same comments apply here as to 12.1 class.ctor.
...A typedef-name that names a class is a class-name (7.1.3); however, aA typedef-namethat names a classshall not be used as theidentifierclass-name following the ~ in the declarator for a destructor declaration.
[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]
A use of an injected-class-name in an elaborated-type-specifier should not name the constructor of the class, but rather the class itself, because in that context we know that we're looking for a type. See issue 147.
Proposed Resolution (revised October 2002):
This clarifies the changes made in the TC for issue 147.
In 3.4.3.1 class.qual paragraph 1a replace:
If the nested-name-specifier nominates a class C, and the name specified after the nested-name-specifier, when looked up in C, is the injected class name of C (clause 9 class), the name is instead considered to name the constructor of class C.
with
In a lookup in which the constructor is an acceptable lookup result, if the nested-name-specifier nominates a class C and the name specified after the nested-name-specifier, when looked up in C, is the injected class name of C (clause 9 class), the name is instead considered to name the constructor of class C. [Note: For example, the constructor is not an acceptable lookup result in an elaborated type specifier so the constructor would not be used in place of the injected class name.]
Note that issue 263 updates a part of the same paragraph.
Append to the example:
struct A::A a2; // object of type A
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
Consider this code:
struct A { int i; struct i {}; };
struct B { int i; struct i {}; };
struct D : public A, public B { using A::i; void f (); };
void D::f () { struct i x; }
I can't find anything in the standard that says definitively what this means. 7.3.3 namespace.udecl says that a using-declaration shall name "a member of a base class" -- but here we have two members, the data member A::i and the class A::i.
Personally, I'd find it more attractive if this code did not work. I'd like "using A::i" to mean "lookup A::i in the usual way and bind B::i to that", which would mean that while "i = 3" would be valid in D::f, "struct i x" would not be. However, if there were no A::i data member, then "A::i" would find the struct and the code in D::f would be valid.
John Spicer: I agree with you, but unfortunately the standard committee did not.
I remembered that this was discussed by the committee and that a resolution was adopted that was different than what I hoped for, but I had a hard time finding definitive wording in the standard.
I went back though my records and found the paper that proposed a resolution and the associated committee motion that adopted the proposed resolution The paper is N0905, and "option 1" from that paper was adopted at the Stockholm meeting in July of 1996. The resolution is that "using A::i" brings in everything named i from A.
3.4.3.2 namespace.qual paragraph 2 was modified to implement this resolution, but interestingly that only covers the namespace case and not the class case. I think the class case was overlooked when the wording was drafted. A core issue should be opened to make sure the class case is handled properly.
Notes from April 2003 meeting:
This is related to issue 11. 7.3.3 namespace.udecl paragraph 10 has an example for namespaces.
Proposed resolution (October 2003):
Add a bullet to the end of 3.4.3.1 class.qual paragraph 1:
Change the beginning of 7.3.3 namespace.udecl paragraph 4 from
A using-declaration used as a member-declaration shall refer to a member of a base class of the class being defined, shall refer to a member of an anonymous union that is a member of a base class of the class being defined, or shall refer to an enumerator for an enumeration type that is a member of a base class of the class being defined.
to
In a using-declaration used as a member-declaration, the nested-name-specifier shall name a base class of the class being defined. Such a using-declaration introduces the set of declarations found by member name lookup (10.2 class.member.lookup, 3.4.3.1 class.qual).
[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]
I have some concerns with the description of name lookup for elaborated type specifiers in 3.4.4 basic.lookup.elab:
Paragraph 2 has some parodoxical statements concerning looking up names that are simple identifers:
If the elaborated-type-specifier refers to an enum-name and this lookup does not find a previously declared enum-name, the elaborated-type-specifier is ill-formed. If the elaborated-type-specifier refers to an [sic] class-name and this lookup does not find a previously declared class-name... the elaborated-type-specifier is a declaration that introduces the class-name as described in 3.3.1 basic.scope.pdecl."
It is not clear how an elaborated-type-specifier can refer to an enum-name or class-name given that the lookup does not find such a name and that class-name and enum-name are not part of the syntax of an elaborated-type-specifier.
The second sentence quoted above seems to suggest that the name found will not be used if it is not a class name. typedef-name names are ill-formed due to the sentence preceding the quote. If lookup finds, for instance, an enum-name then a new declaration will be created. This differs from C, and from the enum case, and can have surprising effects:
struct S {
enum E {
one = 1
};
class E* p; // declares a global class E?
};
Was this really the intent? If this is the case then some more work is needed on 3.4.4 basic.lookup.elab. Note that the section does not make finding a type template formal ill-formed, as is done in 7.1.5.3 dcl.type.elab. I don't see anything that makes a type template formal name a class-name. So the example in 7.1.5.3 dcl.type.elab of friend class T; where T is a template type formal would no longer be ill-formed with this interpretation because it would declare a new class T.
(See also issue 254.)
Notes from the 4/02 meeting:
This will be consolidated with the changes for issue 254. See also issue 298.
Proposed resolution (October 2002):
As given in N1376=02-0034. Note that the inserts and strikeouts in that document do not display correctly in all browsers; <del> --> <strike> and <ins> --> <b>, and the similar changes for the closing delimiters, seem to do the trick.
[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]
The text in 3.4.4 basic.lookup.elab paragraph 2 twice refers to the possibility that an elaborated-type-specifier might have the form
class-key identifier ;
However, the grammar for elaborated-type-specifier does not include a semicolon.
In both 3.4.4 basic.lookup.elab and 7.1.5.3 dcl.type.elab, the text asserts that an elaborated-type-specifier that refers to a typedef-name is ill-formed. However, it is permissible for the form of elaborated-type-specifier that begins with typename to refer to a typedef-name.
This problem is the result of adding the typename form to the elaborated-type-name grammar without changing the verbiage correspondingly. It could be fixed either by updating the verbiage or by moving the typename syntax into its own production and referring to both nonterminals when needed.
(See also issue 180. If this issue is resolved in favor of a separate nonterminal in the grammar for the typename forms, the wording in that issue's resolution must be changed accordingly.)
Notes from 04/01 meeting:
The consensus was in favor of moving the typename forms out of the elaborated-type-specifier grammar.
Notes from the 4/02 meeting:
This will be consolidated with the changes for issue 245.
Proposed resolution (October 2002):
As given in N1376=02-0034.
[Voted into WP at October 2004 meeting.]
The example in 3.4.5 basic.lookup.classref paragraph 4 is wrong (see 11.2 class.access.base paragraph 5; the cast to the naming class can't be done) and needs to be corrected. This was noted when the final version of the algorithm for issue 39 was checked against it.
Proposed Resolution (October 2003):
Remove the entire note at the end of 3.4.5 basic.lookup.classref paragraph 4, including the entire example.
[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]
3.5 basic.link paragraph 4 says (among other things):A name having namespace scope has external linkage if it is the name ofThat prohibits for example:
- [...]
- a named enumeration (7.2 dcl.enum), or an unnamed enumeration defined in a typedef declaration in which the enumeration has the typedef name for linkage purposes (7.1.3 dcl.typedef)
typedef enum { e1 } *PE;
void f(PE) {} // Cannot declare a function (with linkage) using a
// type with no linkage.
However, the same prohibition was not made for class scope types. Indeed, 3.5 basic.link paragraph 5 says:
In addition, a member function, static data member, class or enumeration of class scope has external linkage if the name of the class has external linkage.
That allows for:
struct S {
typedef enum { e1 } *MPE;
void mf(MPE) {}
};
My guess is that this is an unintentional consequence of 3.5 basic.link paragraph 5, but I would like confirmation on that.
Proposed resolution:
Change text in 3.5 basic.link paragraph 5 from:
In addition, a member function, static data member, class or enumeration of class scope has external linkage if the name of the class has external linkage.to:
In addition, a member function, a static data member, a named class or enumeration of class scope, or an unnamed class or enumeration defined in a class-scope typedef declaration such that the class or enumeration has the typedef name for linkage purposes (7.1.3 dcl.typedef), has external linkage if the name of the class has external linkage.
[Voted into WP at October 2004 meeting.]
According to 3.5 basic.link paragraph 8, "A name with no linkage ... shall not be used to declare an entity with linkage." This would appear to rule out code such as:
typedef struct {
int i;
} *PT;
extern "C" void f(PT);
[likewise]
static enum { a } e;
which seems rather harmless to me.
See issue 132, which dealt with a closely related issue.
Andrei Iltchenko submitted the same issue via comp.std.c++ on 17 Dec 2001:
Paragraph 8 of Section 3.5 basic.link contains the following sentences: "A name with no linkage shall not be used to declare an entity with linkage. If a declaration uses a typedef name, it is the linkage of the type name to which the typedef refers that is considered."
The problem with this wording is that it doesn't cover cases where the type to which a typedef-name refers has no name. As a result it's not clear whether, for example, the following program is well-formed:
#include <vector>
int main()
{
enum { sz = 6u };
typedef int (* aptr_type)[sz];
typedef struct data {
int i, j;
} * elem_type;
std::vector<aptr_type> vec1;
std::vector<elem_type> vec2;
}
Suggested resolution:
My feeling is that the rules for whether or not a typedef-name used in a declaration shall be treated as having or not having linkage ought to be modelled after those for dependent types, which are explained in 14.6.2.1 temp.dep.type.
Add the following text at the end of Paragraph 8 of Section 3.5 basic.link and replace the following example:
In case of the type referred to by a typedef declaration not having a name,
the newly declared typedef-name has linkage if and only if its referred type
comprises no names of no linkage excluding local names that are eligible for
appearance in an integral constant-expression (5.19
expr.const).
[Note: if the referred
type contains a typedef-name that does not denote an unnamed class, the
linkage of that name is established by the recursive application of this
rule for the purposes of using typedef names in declarations.] [Example:
void f()
{
struct A { int x; }; // no linkage
extern A a; // ill-formed
typedef A Bl
extern B b; // ill-formed
enum { sz = 6u };
typedef int (* C)[sz]; // C has linkage because sz can
// appear in a constant expression
}
--end example.]
Additional issue (13 Jan 2002, from Andrei Iltchenko):
Paragraph 2 of Section 14.3.1 temp.arg.type is inaccurate and unnecessarily prohibits a few important cases; it says "A local type, a type with no linkage, an unnamed type or a type compounded from any of these types shall not be used as a template-argument for a template-parameter." The inaccuracy stems from the fact that it is not a type but its name that can have a linkage.
For example based on the current wording of 14.3.1 temp.arg.type, the following example is ill-formed.
#include <vector>
struct data {
int i, j;
};
int main()
{
enum { sz = 6u };
std::vector<int(*)[sz]> vec1; // The types 'int(*)[sz]' and 'data*'
std::vector<data*> vec2; // have no names and are thus illegal
// as template type arguments.
}
Suggested resolution:
Replace the whole second paragraph of Section 14.3.1 temp.arg.type with the following wording:
A type whose name does not have a linkage or a type compounded from any such
type shall not be used as a template-argument for a template-parameter. In
case of a type T used as a template type argument not having a name,
T
constitutes a valid template type argument if and only if the name of an
invented typedef declaration referring to T would have linkage;
see 3.5.
[Example:
template <class T> class X { /* ... */ };
void f()
{
struct S { /* ... */ };
enum { sz = 6u };
X<S> x3; // error: a type name with no linkage
// used as template-argument
X<S*> x4; // error: pointer to a type name with
// no linkage used as template-argument
X<int(*)[sz]> x5; // OK: since the name of typedef int
// (*pname)[sz] would have linkage
}
--end example] [Note: a template type argument may be an incomplete type
(3.9
basic.types).]
Proposed resolution:
This is resolved by the changes for issue 389. The present issue was moved back to Review status in February 2004 because 389 was moved back to Review.
[Voted into WP at October 2004 meeting.]
3.5 basic.link paragraph 8 says (among other things):
A name with no linkage (notably, the name of a class or enumeration declared in a local scope (3.3.2 basic.scope.local)) shall not be used to declare an entity with linkage. If a declaration uses a typedef name, it is the linkage of the type name to which the typedef refers that is considered.
I would expect this to catch situations such as the following:
// File 1:
typedef struct {} *UP;
void f(UP) {}
// File 2:
typedef struct {} *UP; // Or: typedef struct {} U, *UP;
void f(UP);
The problem here is that most implementations must generate the same mangled name for "f" in two translation units. The quote from the standard above isn't quite clear, unfortunately: There is no type name to which the typedef refers.
A related situation is the following:
enum { no, yes } answer;
The variable "answer" is declared as having external linkage, but it is
declared
with an unnamed type. Section 3.5
basic.link
talks about the linkage of names, however,
and does therefore not prohibit this. There is no implementation issue
for most
compilers because they do not ordinarily mangle variable names, but I
believe
the intent was to allow that implementation technique.
Finally, these problems are much less relevant when declaring names with internal linkage. For example, I would expect there to be few problems with:
typedef struct {} *UP;
static void g(UP);
I recently tried to interpret 3.5 basic.link paragraph 8 with the assumption that types with no names have no linkage. Surprisingly, this resulted in many diagnostics on variable declarations (mostly like "answer" above).
I'm pretty sure the standard needs clarifying words in this matter, but which way should it go?
See also issue 319.
Notes from April 2003 meeting:
There was agreement that this check is not needed for variables and functions with extern "C" linkage, and a change there is desirable to allow use of legacy C headers. The check is also not needed for entities with internal linkage, but there was no strong sentiment for changing that case.
We also considered relaxing this requirement for extern "C++" variables but decided that we did not want to change that case.
We noted that if extern "C" functions are allowed an additional check is needed when such functions are used as arguments in calls of function templates. Deduction will put the type of the extern "C" function into the type of the template instance, i.e., there would be a need to mangle the name of an unnamed type. To plug that hole we need an additional requirement on the template created in such a case.
Proposed resolution (April 2003, revised slightly October 2003 and March 2004):
In 3.5 basic.link paragraph 8, change
A name with no linkage (notably, the name of a class or enumeration declared in a local scope (3.3.2 basic.scope.local)) shall not be used to declare an entity with linkage. If a declaration uses a typedef name, it is the linkage of the type name to which the typedef refers that is considered.
to
A type is said to have linkage if and only ifA type without linkage shall not be used as the type of a variable or function with linkage, unless the variable or function has extern "C" linkage (7.5 dcl.link). [Note: in other words, a type without linkage contains a class or enumeration that cannot be named outside of its translation unit. An entity with external linkage declared using such a type could not correspond to any other entity in another translation unit of the program and is thus not permitted. Also note that classes with linkage may contain members whose types do not have linkage, and that typedef names are ignored in the determination of whether a type has linkage.]
- it is a class or enumeration type that is named (or has a name for linkage purposes (7.1.3 dcl.typedef)) and the name has linkage; or
- it is a specialization of a class template (14 temp) [Footnote: a class template always has external linkage, and the requirements of 14.3.1 temp.arg.type and 14.3.2 temp.arg.nontype ensure that the template arguments will also have appropriate linkage]; or
- it is a fundamental type (3.9.1 basic.fundamental); or
- it is a compound type (3.9.2 basic.compound) other than a class or enumeration, compounded exclusively from types that have linkage; or
- it is a cv-qualified (3.9.3 basic.type.qualifier) version of a type that has linkage.
Change 14.3.1 temp.arg.type paragraph 2 from (note: this is the wording as updated by issue 62)
The following types shall not be used as a template-argument for a template type-parameter:
- a type whose name has no linkage
- an unnamed class or enumeration type that has no name for linkage purposes (7.1.3 dcl.typedef)
- a cv-qualified version of one of the types in this list
- a type created by application of declarator operators to one of the types in this list
- a function type that uses one of the types in this list
to
A type without linkage (3.5 basic.link) shall not be used as a template-argument for a template type-parameter.
Once this issue is ready, issue 319 should be moved back to ready as well.
[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]
Consider the following bit of code:
namespace N {
struct S {
void f();
};
}
using namespace N;
void S::f() {
extern void g(); // ::g or N::g?
}
In 3.5 basic.link paragraph 7 the Standard says (among other things),
When a block scope declaration of an entity with linkage is not found to refer to some other declaration, then that entity is a member of the innermost enclosing namespace.
The question then is whether N is an “enclosing namespace” for the local declaration of g()?
Proposed resolution (October 2004):
Add the following text as a new paragraph at the end of 7.3.1 namespace.def:
The enclosing namespaces of a declaration are those namespaces in which the declaration lexically appears, except for a redeclaration of a namespace member outside its original namespace (e.g., a definition as specified in 7.3.1.2 namespace.memdef). Such a redeclaration has the same enclosing namespaces as the original declaration. [Example:namespace Q { namespace V { void f(); // enclosing namespaces are the global namespace, Q, and Q::V class C { void m(); }; } void V::f() { // enclosing namespaces are the global namespace, Q, and Q::V extern void h(); // ... so this declares Q::V::h } void V::C::m() { // enclosing namespaces are the global namespace, Q, and Q::V } }—end example]
[Moved to DR at 4/02 meeting.]
The Standard does not appear to address how the rules for order of initialization apply to static data members of class templates.
Suggested resolution: Add the following verbiage to either 3.6.2 basic.start.init or 9.4.2 class.static.data:
Initialization of static data members of class templates shall be performed during the initialization of static data members for the first translation unit to have static initialization performed for which the template member has been instantiated. This requirement shall apply to both the static and dynamic phases of initialization.
Notes from 04/01 meeting:
Enforcing an order of initialization on static data members of class templates will result in substantial overhead on access to such variables. The problem is that the initialization be required as the result of instantiation in a function used in the initialization of a variable in another translation unit. In current systems, the order of initialization of static data data members of class templates is not predictable. The proposed resolution is to state that the order of initialization is undefined.
Proposed resolution (04/01, updated slightly 10/01):
Replace the following sentence in 3.6.2 basic.start.init paragraph 1:
Objects with static storage duration defined in namespace scope in the same translation unit and dynamically initialized shall be initialized in the order in which their definition appears in the translation unit.
with
Dynamic initialization of an object is either ordered or unordered. Explicit specializations and definitions of class template static data members have ordered initialization. Other class template static data member instances have unordered initialization. Other objects defined in namespace scope have ordered initialization. Objects defined within a single translation unit and with ordered initialization shall be initialized in the order of their definitions in the translation unit. The order of initialization is unspecified for objects with unordered initialization and for objects defined in different translation units.
Note that this wording is further updated by issue 362.
Note (07/01):
Brian McNamara argues against the proposed resolution. The following excerpt captures the central point of a long message on comp.std.c++:
I have a class for representing linked lists which looks something liketemplate <class T> class List { ... static List<T>* sentinel; ... }; template <class T> List<T>* List<T>::sentinel( new List<T> ); // static member definitionThe sentinel list node is used to represent "nil" (the null pointer cannot be used with my implementation, for reasons which are immaterial to this discussion). All of the List's non-static member functions and constructors depend upon the value of the sentinel. Under the proposed resolution for issue #270, Lists cannot be safely instantiated before main() begins, as the sentinel's initialization is "unordered".
(Some readers may propose that I should use the "singleton pattern" in the List class. This is undesirable, for reasons I shall describe at the end of this post at the location marked "[*]". For the moment, indulge me by assuming that "singleton" is not an adequate solution.)
Though this is a particular example from my own experience, I believe it is representative of a general class of examples. It is common to use static data members of a class to represent the "distinguished values" which are important to instances of that class. It is imperative that these values be initialized before any instances of the class are created, as the instances depend on the values.
In a comp.std.c++ posting on 28 Jul 2001, Brian McNamara proposes the following alternative resolution:
Replace the following sentence in 3.6.2 basic.start.init paragraph 1:
Objects with static storage duration defined in namespace scope in the same translation unit and dynamically initialized shall be initialized in the order in which their definition appears in the translation unit.with
Objects with static storage duration defined in namespace scope shall be initialized in the order described below.and then after paragraph 1, add this text:
Dynamic initialization is either ordered or quasi-ordered. Explicit specializations of class template static data members have ordered initialization. Other class template static data member instances have quasi-ordered initialization. All other objects defined in namespace scope have ordered initialization. The order of initialization is specified as follows:along with a non-normative note along the lines of
- Objects that are defined within a single translation unit and that have ordered initialization shall be initialized in the order of their definitions in the translation unit.
- Objects that are defined only within a single translation unit and that have quasi-ordered initialization shall also be initialized in the order of their definitions in the translation unit -- that is, as though these objects had ordered initialization.
- Objects that are defined within multiple translation units (which, therefore, must have quasi-ordered initialization) shall be initialized as follows: in exactly one translation unit (which one is unspecified), the object shall be treated as though it has ordered initialization; in the other translation units which define the object, the object will be initialized before all other objects that have ordered initialization in those translation units.
- For any two objects, "X" and "Y", with static storage duration and defined in namespace scope, if the previous bullets do not imply a relationship for the initialization ordering between "X" and "Y", then the relative initialization order of these objects is unspecified.
[ Note: The intention is that translation units can each be compiled separately with no knowledge of what objects may be re-defined in other translation units. Each translation unit can contain a method which initializes all objects (both quasi-ordered and ordered) as though they were ordered. When these translation units are linked together to create an executable program, all of these objects can be initialized by simply calling the initialization methods (one from each translation unit) in any order. Quasi-ordered objects require some kind of guard to ensure that they are not initialized more than once (the first attempt to initialize such an object should succeed; any subsequent attempts should simply be ignored). ]
Erwin Unruh replies: There is a point which is not mentioned with this posting. It is the cost for implementing the scheme. It requires that each static template variable is instantiated in ALL translation units where it is used. There has to be a flag for each of these variables and this flag has to be checked in each TU where the instantiation took place.
I would reject this idea and stand with the proposed resolution of issue 270.
There just is no portable way to ensure the "right" ordering of construction.
Notes from 10/01 meeting:
The Core Working Group reaffirmed its previous decision.
[Voted into WP at April 2005 meeting.]
I have a couple of questions about 3.6.2 basic.start.init, "Initialization of non-local objects." I believe I recall some discussion of related topics, but I can't find anything relevant in the issues list.
The first question arose when I discovered that different implementations treat reference initialization differently. Consider, for example, the following (namespace-scope) code:
int i; int& ir = i; int* ip = &i;Both initializers, "i" and "&i", are constant expressions, per 5.19 expr.const paragraph 4-5 (a reference constant expression and an address constant expression, respectively). Thus, both initializations are categorized as static initialization, according to 3.6.2 basic.start.init paragraph 1:
Zero-initialization and initialization with a constant expression are collectively called static initialization; all other initialization is dynamic initialization.
However, that does not mean that both ir and ip must be initialized at the same time:
Objects of POD types (3.9) with static storage duration initialized with constant expressions (5.19) shall be initialized before any dynamic initialization takes place.
Because "int&" is not a POD type, there is no requirement that it be initialized before dynamic initialization is performed, and implementations differ in this regard. Using a function called during dynamic initialization to print the values of "ip" and "&ir", I found that g++, Sun, HP, and Intel compilers initialize ir before dynamic initialization and the Microsoft compiler does not. All initialize ip before dynamic initialization. I believe this is conforming (albeit inconvenient :-) behavior.
So, my first question is whether it is intentional that a reference of static duration, initialized with a reference constant expression, need not be initialized before dynamic initialization takes place, and if so, why?
The second question is somewhat broader. As 3.6.2 basic.start.init is currently worded, it appears that there are no requirements on when ir is initialized. In fact, there is a whole category of objects -- non-POD objects initialized with a constant expression -- for which no ordering is specified. Because they are categorized as part of "static initialization," they are not subject to the requirement that they "shall be initialized in the order in which their definition appears in the translation unit." Because they are not POD types, they are not required to be initialized before dynamic initialization occurs. Am I reading this right?
My preference would be to change 3.6.2 basic.start.init paragraph 1 so that 1) references are treated like POD objects with respect to initialization, and 2) "static initialization" applies only to POD objects and references. Here's some sample wording to illustrate:
Suggested resolution:
Objects with static storage duration (3.7.1) shall be zero-initialized (8.5) before any other initialization takes place. Initializing a reference, or an object of POD type, of static storage duration with a constant expression (5.19) is called constant initialization. Together, zero-initialization and constant initialization are called static initialization; all other initialization is dynamic initialization. Static initialization shall be performed before any dynamic initialization takes place. [Remainder unchanged.]
Proposed Resolution:
Change 3.6.2 basic.start.init paragraph 1 as follows:
Objects with static storage duration (3.7.1) shall be zero-initialized (8.5) before any other initialization takes place. Initializing a reference, or an object of POD type, of static storage duration with a constant expression (5.19) is called constant initialization. Together, zero-initialization and constant initialization areZero-initialization and initialization with a constant expression are collectivelycalled static initialization; all other initialization is dynamic initialization. Static initialization shall be performedObjects of POD types (3.9) with static storage duration initialized with constant expressions (5.19) shall be initializedbefore any dynamic initialization takes place.
[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]
Standard is clear on behaviour of default allocation/deallocation functions. However, it is surpisingly vague on requirements to the behaviour of user-defined deallocation function and an interaction between delete-expression and deallocation function. This caused a heated argument on fido7.su.c-cpp newsgroup.
Resume:
It is not clear if user-supplied deallocation function is called from delete-expr when the operand of delete-expr is the null pointer (5.3.5 expr.delete). If it is, standard does not specify what user-supplied deallocation function shall do with the null pointer operand (18.4.1 lib.new.delete). Instead, Standard uses the term "has no effect", which meaning is too vague in context given (5.3.5 expr.delete).
Description:
Consider statements
char* p= 0; //result of failed non-throwing ::new char[] ::delete[] p;Argument passed to delete-expression is valid - it is the result of a call to the non-throwing version of ::new, which has been failed. 5.3.5 expr.delete paragraph 1 explicitly prohibit us to pass 0 without having the ::new failure.
Standard does NOT specify whether user-defined deallocation function should be called in this case, or not.
Specifically, standard says in 5.3.5 expr.delete paragraph 2:
...if the value of the operand of delete is the null pointer the operation has no effect.Standard doesn't specify term "has no effect". It is not clear from this context, whether the called deallocation function is required to have no effect, or delete-expression shall not call the deallocation function.
Furthermore, in para 4 standard says on default deallocation function:
If the delete-expression calls the implementation deallocation function (3.7.3.2 basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation), if the operand of the delete expression is not the null pointer constant, ...Why it is so specific on interaction of default deallocation function and delete-expr?
If "has no effect" is a requirement to the deallocation function, then it should be stated in 3.7.3.2 basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation, or in 18.4.1.1 lib.new.delete.single and 18.4.1.2 lib.new.delete.array, and it should be stated explicitly.
Furthermore, standard does NOT specify what actions shall be performed by user-supplied deallocation function if NULL is given (18.4.1.1 lib.new.delete.single paragraph 12):
Required behaviour: accept a value of ptr that is null or that was returned by an earlier call to the default operator new(std::size_t) or operator new(std::size_t, const std::nothrow_t&).
The same corresponds to ::delete[] case.
Expected solution:
Notes from October 2002 meeting:
We believe that study of 18.4.1.1 lib.new.delete.single paragraphs 12 and 13, 18.4.1.2 lib.new.delete.array paragraphs 11 and 12, and 3.7.3.2 basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation paragraph 3 shows that the system-provided operator delete functions must accept a null pointer and ignore it. Those sections also show that a user-written replacement for the system-provided operator delete functions must accept a null pointer. There is no requirement that such functions ignore a null pointer, which is okay -- perhaps the reason for replacing the system-provided functions is to do something special with null pointer values (e.g., log such calls and return).
We believe that the standard should not require an implementation to call a delete function with a null pointer, but it must allow that. For the system-provided delete functions or replacements thereof, the standard already makes it clear that the delete function must accept a null pointer. For class-specific delete functions, we believe the standard should require that such functions accept a null pointer, though it should not mandate what they do with null pointers.
5.3.5 expr.delete needs to be updated to say that it is unspecified whether or not the operator delete function is called with a null pointer, and 3.7.3.2 basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation needs to be updated to say that any deallocation function must accept a null pointer.
Proposed resolution (October, 2004):
Change 5.3.5 expr.delete paragraph 2 as indicated:
If the operand has a class type, the operand is converted to a pointer type by calling the above-mentioned conversion function, and the converted operand is used in place of the original operand for the remainder of this section. In either alternative,ifthe value of the operand of deleteis the null pointer the operation has no effectmay be a null pointer value. If it is not a null pointer value, inInthe first alternative (delete object), the value of the operand of delete shall be a pointer to a non-array object or a pointer to a sub-object (1.8 intro.object) representing a base class of such an object (clause 10 class.derived)...
Change 5.3.5 expr.delete paragraph 4 as follows (note that the old wording reflects the changes proposed by issue 442:
The cast-expression in a delete-expression shall be evaluated exactly once.
If the delete-expression calls the implementation deallocation function (3.7.3.2 basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation), and if the value of the operand of the delete expression is not a null pointer, the deallocation function will deallocate the storage referenced by the pointer thus rendering the pointer invalid. [Note: the value of a pointer that refers to deallocated storage is indeterminate. —end note]
Change 5.3.5 expr.delete paragraphs 6-7 as follows:
TheIf the value of the operand of the delete-expression is not a null pointer value, the delete-expression will invoke the destructor (if any) for the object or the elements of the array being deleted. In the case of an array, the elements will be destroyed in order of decreasing address (that is, in reverse order of the completion of their constructor; see 12.6.2 class.base.init).
TheIf the value of the operand of the delete-expression is not a null pointer value, the delete-expression will call a deallocation function (3.7.3.2 basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation). Otherwise, it is unspecified whether the deallocation function will be called. [Note: The deallocation function is called regardless of whether the destructor for the object or some element of the array throws an exception. —end note]
Change 3.7.3.2 basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation paragraph 3 as indicated:
The value of the first argument supplied toone of thea deallocation functions provided in the standard librarymay be a null pointer value; if so, and if the deallocation function is one supplied in the standard library, the callto the deallocation functionhas no effect. Otherwise, the value supplied to operator delete(void*) in the standard library shall be one of the values returned by a previous invocation of either operator new(std::size_t) or operator new(std::size_t, const std::nothrow_t&) in the standard library, and the value supplied to operator delete[](void*) in the standard library shall be one of the values returned by a previous invocation of either operator new[](std::size_t) or operator new[](std::size_t, const std::nothrow_t&) in the standard library.
[Note: this resolution also resolves issue 442.]
[Moved to DR at 4/02 meeting.]
Jack Rouse: 3.8 basic.life paragraph 1 includes:
The lifetime of an object is a runtime property of the object. The lifetime of an object of type T begins when:Consider the code:
- storage with the proper alignment and size for type T is obtained, and
- if T is a class type with a non-trivial constructor (12.1 class.ctor ), the constructor call has completed.
struct B {
B( int = 0 );
~B();
};
struct S {
B b1;
};
int main()
{
S s = { 1 };
return 0;
}
In the code above, class S does have a non-trivial constructor, the
default constructor generated by the compiler. According the text
above, the lifetime of the auto s would never begin because a
constructor for S is never called. I think the second case in the
text needs to include aggregate initialization.
Mike Miller: I see a couple of ways of fixing the problem. One way would be to change "the constructor call has completed" to "the object's initialization is complete."
Another would be to add following "a class type with a non-trivial constructor" the phrase "that is not initialized with the brace notation (8.5.1 dcl.init.aggr )."
The first formulation treats aggregate initialization like a constructor call; even POD-type members of an aggregate could not be accessed before the aggregate initialization completed. The second is less restrictive; the POD-type members of the aggregate would be usable before the initialization, and the members with non-trivial constructors (the only way an aggregate can acquire a non-trivial constructor) would be protected by recursive application of the lifetime rule.
Proposed resolution (04/01):
In 3.8 basic.life paragraph 1, change
If T is a class type with a non-trivial constructor (12.1 class.ctor), the constructor call has completed.
to
If T is a class type with a non-trivial constructor (12.1 class.ctor), the initialization is complete. [Note: the initialization can be performed by a constructor call or, in the case of an aggregate with an implicitly-declared non-trivial default constructor, an aggregate initialization (8.5.1 dcl.init.aggr).]
[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]
The wording in 3.8 basic.life paragraph 6 allows an lvalue designating an out-of-lifetime object to be used as the operand of a static_cast only if the conversion is ultimately to "char&" or "unsigned char&". This description excludes the possibility of using a cv-qualified version of these types for no apparent reason.
Notes on 04/01 meeting:
The wording should be changed to allow cv-qualified char types.
Proposed resolution (04/01):
In 3.8 basic.life paragraph 6 change the third bullet:
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
3.8 basic.life paragraph 1 second bullet says:
if T is a class type with a non-trivial constructor (12.1), the constructor call has completed.
This is confusing; what was intended is probably something like
if T is a class type and the constructor invoked to create the object is non-trivial (12.1), the constructor call has completed.
Proposed Resolution (October 2003):
As given above.
[Moved to DR at 4/02 meeting.]
3.10 basic.lval paragraph 15 lists the types via which an lvalue can be used to access the stored value of an object; using an lvalue type that is not listed results in undefined behavior. It is permitted to add cv-qualification to the actual type of the object in this access, but only at the top level of the type ("a cv-qualified version of the dynamic type of the object").
However, 4.4 conv.qual paragraph 4 permits a "conversion [to] add cv-qualifiers at levels other than the first in multi-level pointers." The combination of these two rules allows creation of pointers that cannot be dereferenced without causing undefined behavior. For instance:
int* jp;
const int * const * p1 = &jp;
*p1; // undefined behavior!
The reason that *p1 results in undefined behavior is that the type of the lvalue is const int * const", which is not "a cv-qualified version of" int*.
Since the conversion is permitted, we must give it defined semantics, hence we need to fix the wording in 3.10 basic.lval to include all possible conversions of the type via 4.4 conv.qual.
Proposed resolution (04/01):
Add a new bullet to 3.10 basic.lval paragraph 15, following "a cv-qualified version of the dynamic type of the object:"
[Voted into WP at April, 2006 meeting.]
The C standard says in 6.3.2.3, paragraph 4:
Conversion of a null pointer to another pointer type yields a null pointer of that type. Any two null pointers shall compare equal.
C++ appears to be incompatible with the first sentence in only two areas:
A *a = 0;
void *v = a;
C++ (4.10 conv.ptr paragraph 2) says nothing about the value of v.
void *v = 0;
A *b = (A*)v; // aka static_cast<A*>(v)
C++ (5.2.9 expr.static.cast paragraph 10) says nothing about the value of b.
Suggested changes:
Add the following sentence to 4.10 conv.ptr paragraph 2:
The null pointer value is converted to the null pointer value of the destination type.
Add the following sentence to 5.2.9 expr.static.cast paragraph 10:
The null pointer value (4.10 conv.ptr) is converted to the null pointer value of the destination type.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Add the indicated words to 4.10 conv.ptr paragraph 2:
An rvalue of type “pointer to cv T,” where T is an object type, can be converted to an rvalue of type “pointer to cv void”. The result of converting a “pointer to cv T” to a “pointer to cv void” points to the start of the storage location where the object of type T resides, as if the object is a most derived object (1.8 intro.object) of type T (that is, not a base class subobject). The null pointer value is converted to the null pointer value of the destination type.
Add the indicated words to 5.2.9 expr.static.cast paragraph 11:
An rvalue of type “pointer to cv1 void” can be converted to an rvalue of type “pointer to cv2 T,” where T is an object type and cv2 is the same cv-qualification as, or greater cv-qualification than, cv1. The null pointer value is converted to the null pointer value of the destination type. A value of type pointer to object converted to “pointer to cv void” and back, possibly with different cv-qualification, shall have its original value...
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
I have found what looks like a bug in clause 5 expr, paragraph 4:
Between the previous and next sequence point a scalar object shall
have its stored value modified at most once by the evaluation of an
expression. Furthermore, the prior value shall be accessed only to
determine the value to be stored. The requirements of this
paragraph shall be met for each allowable ordering of the
subexpressions of a full expression; otherwise the behavior is
undefined. Example:
i = v[i++]; // the behavior is unspecified
i = 7, i++, i++; // i becomes 9
i = ++i + 1; // the behavior is unspecified
i = i + 1; // the value of i is incremented
--end example]
So which is it, unspecified or undefined?
Notes from October 2002 meeting:
We should find out what C99 says and do the same thing.
Proposed resolution (April 2003):
Change the example in clause 5 expr, paragraph 4 from
[Example:i = v[i++]; // the behavior is unspecified i = 7, i++, i++; // i becomes 9 i = ++i + 1; // the behavior is unspecified i = i + 1; // the value of i is incremented--- end example]
to (changing "unspecified" to "undefined" twice)
[Example:i = v[i++]; // the behavior is undefined i = 7, i++, i++; // i becomes 9 i = ++i + 1; // the behavior is undefined i = i + 1; // the value of i is incremented--- end example]
[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]
Clause 5 expr par. 5 of the standard says:
If during the evaluation of an expression, the result is not mathematically defined or not in the range of representable values for its type, the behavior is undefined, unless such an expression is a constant expression (5.19), in which case the program is ill-formed.
Well, we do know that except in some contexts (e.g. controlling expression of a #if, array bounds), a compiler is not required to evaluate constant-expressions in compile time, right?
Now, let us consider, the following simple snippet:
if (a && 1/0)
...
with a, to fix our attention, being *not* a constant expression. The
quote above seems to say that since 1/0 is a constant
(sub-)expression, the program is ill-formed. So, is it the intent that
such ill-formedness is diagnosable at run-time? Or is it the intent
that the above gives undefined behavior (if 1/0 is evaluated) and is
not ill-formed?
I think the intent is actually the latter, so I propose the following rewording of the quoted section:
If an expression is evaluated but its result is not mathematically defined or not in the range of representable values for its type the behavior is undefined, unless such an expression is a constant expression (5.19) that shall be evaluated during program translation, in which case the program is ill-formed.
Rationale (March, 2004):
We feel the standard is clear enough. The quoted sentence does begin "If during the evaluation of an expression, ..." so the rest of the sentence does not apply to an expression that is not evaluated.
Note (September, 2004):
Gennaro Prota feels that the CWG missed the point of his original comment: unless a constant expression appears in a context that requires a constant expression, an implementation is permitted to defer its evaluation to runtime. An evaluation that fails at runtime cannot affect the well-formedness of the program; only expressions that are evaluated at compile time can make a program ill-formed.
The status has been reset to “open” to allow further discussion.
Proposed resolution (October, 2004):
Change paragraph 5 of 5 expr as indicated:
If during the evaluation of an expression, the result is not mathematically defined or not in the range of representable values for its type, the behavior is undefined, unless such an expressionis a constant expressionappears where an integral constant expression is required (5.19 expr.const), in which case the program is ill-formed.
[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]
5.1 expr.prim paragraph 11 reads,
A template-id shall be used as an unqualified-id only as specified in 14.7.2 temp.explicit , 14.7 temp.spec , and 14.5.4 temp.class.spec .
What uses of template-ids as unqualified-ids is this supposed to prevent? And is the list of referenced sections correct/complete? For instance, what about 14.8.1 temp.arg.explicit, "Explicit template argument specification?" Does its absence from the list in 5.1 expr.prim paragraph 11 mean that "f<int>()" is ill-formed?
This is even more confusing when you recall that unqualified-ids are contained in qualified-ids:
qualified-id: ::opt nested-name-specifier templateopt unqualified-id
Is the wording intending to say "used as an unqualified-id that is not part of a qualified-id?" Or something else?
Proposed resolution (10/00):
Remove the referenced sentence altogether.
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
The example below is ambiguous.
struct A{
struct B{};
};
A::B C();
namespace B{
A C();
}
struct Test {
friend A::B ::C();
};
Here, it is not clear whether the friend declaration denotes
A B::C() or A::B C(), yet the standard does not resolve this
ambiguity.
The ambiguity arises since both the simple-type-specifier (7.1.5.2 dcl.type.simple paragra 1) and an init-declararator (8 dcl.decl paragraph 1) contain an optional :: and an optional nested-name-specifier (5.1 expr.prim paragraph 1). Therefore, two different ways to analyse this code are possible:
simple-type-specifier = A::Bor
init-declarator = ::C()
simple-declaration = friend A::B ::C();
simple-type-specifier = ASince it is a friend declaration, the init-declarator may be qualified, and start with a global scope.
init-declarator = ::B::C()
simple-declaration = friend A ::B::C();
Suggested Resolution: In the definition of nested-name-specifier, add a sentence saying that a :: token immediately following a nested-name-specifier is always considered as part of the nested-name-specifier. Under this interpretation, the example is ill-formed, and should be corrected as either
friend A (::B::C)(); //or
friend A::B (::C)();
An alternate suggestion — changing 7.1 dcl.spec to say that
The longest sequence of tokens that could possibly be a type name is taken as the decl-specifier-seq of a declaration.
— is undesirable because it would make the example well-formed rather than requiring the user to disambiguate the declaration explicitly.
Proposed resolution (04/01):
(See below for problem with this, from 10/01 meeting.)
In 5.1 expr.prim paragraph 7,
Before the grammar for qualified-id, start a new paragraph 7a with the text
A qualified-id is an id-expression that contains the scope resolution operator ::.
Following the grammar fragment, insert the following:
The longest sequence of tokens that could form a qualified-id constitutes a single qualified-id. [Example:
// classes C, D; functions F, G, namespace N; non-class type T friend C ::D::F(); // ill-formed, means friend (C::D::F)(); friend C (::D::F)(); // well-formed friend N::T ::G(); // ill-formed, means friend (N::T::G)(); friend N::T (::G)(); // well-formed—end example]
Start a new paragraph 7b following the example.
(This resolution depends on that of issue 215.)
Notes from 10/01 meeting:
It was pointed out that the proposed resolution does not deal with cases like X::Y where X is a type but not a class type. The working group reaffirmed its decision that the disambiguation should be syntactic only, i.e., it should depend only on whether or not the name is a type.
Jason Merrill :At the Seattle meeting, I suggested that a solution might be to change the class-or-namespace-name in the nested-name-specifier rule to just be "identifier"; there was some resistance to this idea. FWIW, I've tried this in g++. I had to revise the idea so that only the second and subsequent names were open to being any identifier, but that seems to work just fine.
So, instead of
it would be
Or some equivalent but right-associative formulation, if people feel that's important, but it seems irrelevant to me.
Clark Nelson :
Personally, I prefer the left-associative rule. I think it makes it easier to understand. I was thinking about this production a lot at the meeting, considering also some issues related to 301. My formulation was getting kind of ugly, but with a left-associative rule, it gets a lot nicer.
Your proposal isn't complete, however, as it doesn't allow template arguments without an explicit template keyword. You probably want to add an alternative for:
There is admittedly overlap between this alternative and
but I think they're both necessary.
Notes from the 4/02 meeting:
The changes look good. Clark Nelson will merge the two proposals to produce a single proposed resolution.
Proposed resolution (April 2003):
nested-name-specifier is currently defined in 5.1 expr.prim paragraph 7 as:
The proposed definition is instead:
Issue 215 is addressed by using type-name instead of class-name in the first alternative. Issue 125 (this issue) is addressed by using identifier instead of anything more specific in the third alternative. Using left association instead of right association helps eliminate the need for class-or-namespace-name (or type-or-namespace-name, as suggested for issue 215).
It should be noted that this formulation also rules out the possibility of A::template B::, i.e. using the template keyword without any template arguments. I think this is according to the purpose of the template keyword, and that the former rule allowed such a construct only because of the difficulty of formulation of a right-associative rule that would disallow it. But I wanted to be sure to point out this implication.
Notes from April 2003 meeting:
See also issue 96.
The proposed change resolves only part of issue 215.
[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]
Christophe de Dinechin: In 5.2.2 expr.call , paragraph 2 reads:
If no declaration of the called function is visible from the scope of the call the program is ill-formed.I think nothing there or in the previous paragraph indicates that this does not apply to calls through pointer or virtual calls.
Mike Miller: "The called function" is unfortunate phraseology; it makes it sound as if it's referring to the function actually called, as opposed to the identifier in the postfix expression. It's wrong with respect to Koenig lookup, too (the declaration need not be visible if it can be found in a class or namespace associated with one or more of the arguments).
In fact, this paragraph should be a note. There's a general rule that says you have to find an unambiguous declaration of any name that is used (3.4 basic.lookup paragraph 1); the only reason this paragraph is here is to contrast with C's implicit declaration of called functions.
Proposed resolution:
Change section 5.2.2 expr.call paragraph 2 from:If no declaration of the called function is visible from the scope of the call the program is ill-formed.to:
[Note: if a function or member function name is used, and name lookup (3.4 basic.lookup) does not find a declaration of that name, the program is ill-formed. No function is implicitly declared by such a call. ]
(See also issue 218.)
[Voted into WP at April, 2006 meeting.]
5.2.4 expr.pseudo paragraph 2 says both:
The type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same as the object type.and also:
The cv-unqualified versions of the object type and of the type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same type.Which is it? "The same" or "the same up to cv-qualifiers"? The second sentence is more generous than the first. Most compilers seem to implement the less restrictive form, so I guess that's what I think we should do.
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change 5.2.4 expr.pseudo paragraph 2 as follows:
The left-hand side of the dot operator shall be of scalar type. The left-hand side of the arrow operator shall be of pointer to scalar type. This scalar type is the object type.The type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same as the object type.The cv-unqualified versions of the object type and of the type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same type. Furthermore, the two type-names in a pseudo-destructor-name of the form::opt nested-name-specifieropt type-name ::~ type-name
shall designate the same scalar type.The cv-unqualified versions of the object type and of the type designated by the pseudo-destructor-name shall be the same type.
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
Consider
typedef
struct {
int a;
} A;
A f(void)
{
A a;
return a;
}
int main(void)
{
int* p = &f().a; // #1
}
Should #1 be rejected? The standard is currently silent.
Mike Miller: I don't believe the Standard is silent on this. I will agree that the wording of 5.2.5 expr.ref paragraph 4 bullet 2 is unfortunate, as it is subject to misinterpretation. It reads,
If E1 is an lvalue, then E1.E2 is an lvalue.The intent is, "and not otherwise."
Notes from October 2003 meeting:
We agree the reference should be an rvalue, and a change along the lines of that recommended by Mike Miller is reasonable.
Proposed Resolution (October 2003):
Change the second bullet of 5.2.5 expr.ref paragraph 4 to read:
If E1 is an lvalue, then E1.E2 is an lvalue; otherwise, it is an rvalue.
[Voted into WP at April, 2006 meeting.]
There is an inconsistency between the normative text in section 5.2.8 expr.typeid and the example that follows.
Here is the relevant passage (starting with paragraph 4):
When typeid is applied to a type-id, the result refers to a std::type_info object representing the type of the type-id. If the type of the type-id is a reference type, the result of the typeid expression refers to a std::type_info object representing the referenced type.
The top-level cv-qualifiers of the lvalue expression or the type-id that is the operand of typeid are always ignored.
and the example:
typeid(D) == typeid(const D&); // yields true
The second paragraph above says the “type-id that is the operand”. This would be const D&. In this case, the const is not at the top-level (i.e., applied to the operand itself).
By a strict reading, the above should yield false.
My proposal is that the strict reading of the normative test is correct. The example is wrong. Different compilers here give different answers.
Proposed resolution (April, 2005):
Change the second sentence of 5.2.8 expr.typeid paragraph 4 as follows:
If the type of the type-id is a reference to a possibly cv-qualified type, the result of the typeid expression refers to a std::type_info object representing the cv-unqualified referenced type.
[Voted into WP at October 2004 meeting.]
Is it okay to use a static_cast to cast from a private base class to a derived class? That depends on what the words "valid standard conversion" in paragraph 8 mean — do they mean the conversion exists, or that it would not get an error if it were done? I think the former was intended — and therefore a static_cast from a private base to a derived class would be allowed.
Rationale (04/99): A static_cast from a private base to a derived class is not allowed outside a member from the derived class, because 4.10 conv.ptr paragraph 3 implies that the conversion is not valid. (Classic style casts work.)
Reopened September 2003:
Steve Adamczyk: It makes some sense to disallow the inverse conversion that is pointer-to-member of derived to pointer-to-member of private base. There's less justification for the pointer-to-private-base to pointer-to-derived case. EDG, g++ 3.2, and MSVC++ 7.1 allow the pointer case and disallow the pointer-to-member case. Sun disallows the pointer case as well.
struct B {};
struct D : private B {};
int main() {
B *p = 0;
static_cast<D *>(p); // Pointer case: should be allowed
int D::*pm = 0;
static_cast<int B::*>(pm); // Pointer-to-member case: should get error
}
There's a tricky case with old-style casts: because the static_cast interpretation is tried first, you want a case like the above to be considered a static_cast, but then issue an error, not be rejected as not a static cast; if you did the latter, you would then try the cast as a reinterpret_cast.
Ambiguity and casting to a virtual base should likewise be errors after the static_cast interpretation is selected.
Notes from the October 2003 meeting:
There was lots of sentiment for making things symmetrical: the pointer case should be the same as the pointer-to-member case. g++ 3.3 now issues errors on both cases.
We decided an error should be issued on both cases. The access part of the check should be done later; by some definition of the word the static_cast is valid, and then later an access error is issued. This is similar to the way standard conversions work.
Proposed Resolution (October 2003):
Replace paragraph 5.2.9 expr.static.cast/6:
The inverse of any standard conversion sequence (clause 4 conv), other than the lvalue-to-rvalue (4.1 conv.lval), array-to-pointer (4.2 conv.array), function-to-pointer (4.3 conv.func), and boolean (4.12 conv.bool) conversions, can be performed explicitly using static_cast. The lvalue-to-rvalue (4.1 conv.lval), array-to-pointer (4.2 conv.array), and function-to-pointer (4.3 conv.func) conversions are applied to the operand. Such a static_cast is subject to the restriction that the explicit conversion does not cast away constness (5.2.11 expr.const.cast), and the following additional rules for specific cases:
with two paragraphs:
The inverse of any standard conversion sequence (clause 4 conv), other than the lvalue-to-rvalue (4.1 conv.lval), array-to-pointer (4.2 conv.array), function-to-pointer (4.3 conv.func), and boolean (4.12 conv.bool) conversions, can be performed explicitly using static_cast. A program is ill-formed if it uses static_cast to perform the inverse of an ill-formed standard conversion sequence.[Example:--- end example]struct B {}; struct D : private B {}; void f() { static_cast<D*>((B*)0); // Error: B is a private base of D. static_cast<int B::*>((int D::*)0); // Error: B is a private base of D. }The lvalue-to-rvalue (4.1 conv.lval), array-to-pointer (4.2 conv.array), and function-to-pointer (4.3 conv.func) conversions are applied to the operand. Such a static_cast is subject to the restriction that the explicit conversion does not cast away constness (5.2.11 expr.const.cast), and the following additional rules for specific cases:
In addition, modify the second sentence of 5.4 expr.cast/5. The first two sentences of 5.4 expr.cast/5 presently read:
The conversions performed bycan be performed using the cast notation of explicit type conversion. The same semantic restrictions and behaviors apply.
- a const_cast (5.2.11),
- a static_cast (5.2.9),
- a static_cast followed by a const_cast,
- a reinterpret_cast (5.2.10), or
- a reinterpret_cast followed by a const_cast,
Change the second sentence to read:
The same semantic restrictions and behaviors apply, with the exception that in performing a static_cast in the following situations the conversion is valid even if the base class is inaccessible:
- a pointer to an object of derived class type or an lvalue of derived class type may be explicitly converted to a pointer or reference to an unambiguous base class type, respectively;
- a pointer to member of derived class type may be explicitly converted to a pointer to member of an unambiguous non-virtual base class type;
- a pointer to an object of an unambiguous non-virtual base class type, an lvalue of an unambiguous non-virtual base class type, or a pointer to member of an unambiguous non-virtual base class type may be explicitly converted to a pointer, a reference, or a pointer to member of a derived class type, respectively.
Remove paragraph 5.4 expr.cast/7, which presently reads:
In addition to those conversions, the following static_cast and reinterpret_cast operations (optionally followed by a const_cast operation) may be performed using the cast notation of explicit type conversion, even if the base class type is not accessible:
- a pointer to an object of derived class type or an lvalue of derived class type may be explicitly converted to a pointer or reference to an unambiguous base class type, respectively;
- a pointer to member of derived class type may be explicitly converted to a pointer to member of an unambiguous non-virtual base class type;
- a pointer to an object of non-virtual base class type, an lvalue of non-virtual base class type, or a pointer to member of non-virtual base class type may be explicitly converted to a pointer, a reference, or a pointer to member of a derived class type, respectively.
[Voted into WP at October 2004 meeting.]
Consider this code:
struct B {};
struct D : public B {
D(const B&);
};
extern B& b;
void f() {
static_cast<const D&>(b);
}
The rules for static_cast permit the conversion to "const D&" in two ways:
The first alternative is 5.2.9 expr.static.cast/5; the second is 5.2.9 expr.static.cast/2.
Presumably the first alternative is better -- it's the "simpler" conversion. The standard does not seem to make that clear.
Steve Adamczyk: I take the "Otherwise" at the beginning of 5.2.9 expr.static.cast/3 as meaning that the paragraph 2 interpretation is used if available, which means in your example above interpretation 2 would be used. However, that's not what EDG's compiler does, and I agree that it's not the "simpler" conversion.
Proposed Resolution (October 2003):
Move paragraph 5.2.9/5:
An lvalue of type ``cv1 B'', where B is a class type, can be cast to type ``reference to cv2 D'', where D is a class derived (clause 10 class.derived) from B, if a valid standard conversion from ``pointer to D'' to ``pointer to B'' exists (4.10 conv.ptr), cv2 is the same cv-qualification as, or greater cv-qualification than, cv1, and B is not a virtual base class of D. The result is an lvalue of type ``cv2 D.'' If the lvalue of type ``cv1 B'' is actually a sub-object of an object of type D, the lvalue refers to the enclosing object of type D. Otherwise, the result of the cast is undefined. [Example:
struct B {}; struct D : public B {}; D d; B &br = d; static_cast<D&>(br); // produces lvalue to the original d object--- end example]
before paragraph 5.2.9 expr.static.cast/2.
Insert Otherwise, before the text of paragraph 5.2.9 expr.static.cast/2 (which will become 5.2.9 expr.static.cast/3 after the above insertion), so that it reads:
Otherwise, an expression e can be explicitly converted to a type T using a static_cast of the form static_cast<T>(e) if the declaration "T t(e);" is well-formed, for some invented temporary variable t (8.5 dcl.init). The effect of such an explicit conversion is the same as performing the declaration and initialization and then using the temporary variable as the result of the conversion. The result is an lvalue if T is a reference type (8.3.2 dcl.ref), and an rvalue otherwise. The expression e is used as an lvalue if and only if the initialization uses it as an lvalue.
[Voted into WP at April 2005 meeting.]
Paragraph 5.2.9 expr.static.cast paragraph 10 says that:
A value of type pointer to object converted to "pointer to cv void" and back to the original pointer type will have its original value.
That guarantee should be stronger. In particular, given:
T* p1 = new T;
const T* p2 = static_cast<const T*>(static_cast<void *>(p1));
if (p1 != p2)
abort ();
there should be no call to "abort". The last sentence of Paragraph
5.2.9
expr.static.cast paragraph 10 should be changed to read:
A value of type pointer to object converted to "pointer to cv void" and back to the original pointer type (or a variant of the original pointer type that differs only in the cv-qualifiers applied to the object type) will have its original value. [Example:---end example.]T* p1 = new T; const T* p2 = static_cast<const T*>(static_cast<void *>(p1)); bool b = p1 == p2; // b will have the value true.
Proposed resolution:
Change 5.2.9 expr.static.cast paragraph 10 as indicated:
A value of type pointer to object converted to "pointer to cv void" and back to the original pointer type, possibly with different cv-qualification, will have its original value. [Example:T* p1 = new T; const T* p2 = static_cast<const T*>(static_cast<void *>(p1)); bool b = p1 == p2; // b will have the value true.---end example]
Rationale: The wording "possibly with different cv-qualification" was chosen over the suggested wording to allow for changes in cv-qualification at different levels in a multi-level pointer, rather than only at the object type level.
[Voted into WP at April 2005 meeting.]
It is currently not permitted to cast directly between a pointer to function type and a pointer to object type. This conversion is not listed in 5.2.9 expr.static.cast and 5.2.10 expr.reinterpret.cast and thus requires a diagnostic to be issued. However, if a sufficiently long integral type exists (as is the case in many implementations), it is permitted to cast between pointer to function types and pointer to object types using that integral type as an intermediary.
In C the cast results in undefined behavior and thus does not require a diagnostic, and Unix C compilers generally do not issue one. This fact is used in the definition of the standard Unix function dlsym, which is declared to return void* but in fact may return either a pointer to a function or a pointer to an object. The fact that C++ compilers are required to issue a diagnostic is viewed as a "competitive disadvantage" for the language.
Suggested resolution: Add wording to 5.2.10 expr.reinterpret.cast allowing conversions between pointer to function and pointer to object types, if the implementation has an integral data type that can be used as an intermediary.
Several points were raised in opposition to this suggestion:
Martin O'Riordan suggested an alternative approach:
The advantage of this approach is that it would permit writing portable, well-defined programs involving such conversions. However, it breaks the current degree of compatibility between old and new casts, and it adds functionality to dynamic_cast which is not obviously related to its current meaning.
Notes from 04/00 meeting:
Andrew Koenig suggested yet another approach: specify that "no diagnostic is required" if the implementation supports the conversion.
Later note:
It was observed that conversion between function and data pointers is listed as a "common extension" in C99.
Notes on the 10/01 meeting:
It was decided that we want the conversion defined in such a way that it always exists but is always undefined (as opposed to existing only when the size relationship is appropriate, and being implementation-defined in that case). This would allow an implementation to issue an error at compile time if the conversion does not make sense.
Bill Gibbons notes that the definitions of the other similar casts are inconsistent in this regard. Perhaps they should be updated as well.
Proposed resolution (April 2003):
After 5.2.10 expr.reinterpret.cast paragraph 6, insert:
A pointer to a function can be explicitly converted to a pointer to a function of a different type. The effect of calling a function through a pointer to a function type (8.3.5 dcl.fct) that is not the same as the type used in the definition of the function is undefined. Except that converting an rvalue of type ``pointer to T1'' to the type ``pointer to T2'' (where T1 and T2 are function types) and back to its original type yields the original pointer value, the result of such a pointer conversion is unspecified. [Note: see also 4.10 conv.ptr for more details of pointer conversions. ] It is implementation defined whether a conversion from pointer to object to pointer to function and/or a conversion from pointer to function to pointer to object exist.and in paragraph 10:
An lvalue expression of type T1 can be cast to the type ``reference to T2'' if T1 and T2 are object types and an expression of type ``pointer to T1'' can be explicitly converted to the type ``pointer to T2'' using a reinterpret_cast. That is, a reference cast reinterpret_cast< T& >(x) has the same effect as the conversion *reinterpret_cast< T* >(&x) with the built-in & and * operators. The result is an lvalue that refers to the same object as the source lvalue, but with a different type. No temporary is created, no copy is made, and constructors (12.1 class.ctor) or conversion functions (12.3 class.conv) are not called.
Drafting Note:
If either conversion exists, the implementation already has to define the behavior (paragraph 3).
Notes from April 2003 meeting:
The new consensus is that if the implementation allows this cast, pointer-to-function converted to pointer-to-object converted back to the original pointer-to-function should work; anything else is undefined behavior. If the implementation does not allow the cast, it should be ill-formed.
Tom Plum is investigating a new concept, that of a "conditionally-defined" feature, which may be applicable here.
Proposed Resolution (October, 2004):
(See paper J16/04-0067 = WG21 N1627 for background material and rationale for this resolution. The resolution proposed here differs only editorially from the one in the paper.)
Insert the following as 1.3.2 and renumber all following definitions accordingly:
1.3.2 conditionally-supported behavior
behavior evoked by a program construct that is not a mandatory requirement of this International Standard. If a given implementation supports the construct, the behavior shall be as described herein; otherwise, the implementation shall document that the construct is not supported and shall treat a program containing an occurrence of the construct as ill-formed (1.3.4 defns.ill.formed).
Add the indicated words to 1.4 intro.compliance paragraph 2, bullet 2:
If a program contains a violation of any diagnosable rule, or an occurrence of a construct described herein as “conditionally-supported” or as resulting in “conditionally-supported behavior” when the implementation does not in fact support that construct, a conforming implementation shall issue at least one diagnostic message, except that
Insert the following as a new paragraph following 5.2.10 expr.reinterpret.cast paragraph 7:
Converting a pointer to a function to a pointer to an object type or vice versa evokes conditionally-supported behavior. In any such conversion supported by an implementation, converting from an rvalue of one type to the other and back (possibly with different cv-qualification) shall yield the original pointer value; mappings between pointers to functions and pointers to objects are otherwise implementation-defined.
Change 7.4 dcl.asm paragraph 1 as indicated:
The meaning of anAn asm declaration evokes conditionally-supported behavior. If supported, its meaning is implementation-defined.
Change 7.5 dcl.link paragraph 2 as indicated:
The string-literal indicates the required language linkage.The meaning of the string-literal is implementation-defined. A linkage-specification with a string that is unknown to the implementation is ill-formed.This International Standard specifies the semantics of C and C++ language linkage. Other values of the string-literal evoke conditionally-supported behavior, with implementation-defined semantics. [Note: Therefore, a linkage-specification with a string-literal that is unknown to the implementation requires a diagnostic.When the string-literal in a linkage-specification names a programming language, the spelling of the programming language's name is implementation-defined. [Note:It is recommended that the spelling be taken from the document defining that language, for example Ada (not ADA) and Fortran or FORTRAN (depending on the vintage).The semantics of a language linkage other than C++ or C are implementation-defined.]
Change 14 temp paragraph 4 as indicated:
A template, a template explicit specialization (14.7.3 temp.expl.spec), or a class template partial specialization shall not have C linkage. If the linkage of one of these is something other than C or C++, thebehavior is implementation-definedresult is conditionally-supported behavior, with implementation-defined semantics.
[Voted into WP at April, 2006 meeting.]
Is reinterpret_cast<T*>(null_pointer_constant) guaranteed to yield the null pointer value of type T*?
I think a committee clarification is needed. Here's why: 5.2.10 expr.reinterpret.cast par. 8 talks of "null pointer value", not "null pointer constant", so it would seem that
reinterpret_cast<T*>(0)is a normal int->T* conversion, with an implementation-defined result.
However a little note to 5.2.10 expr.reinterpret.cast par. 5 says:
Converting an integral constant expression (5.19) with value zero always yields a null pointer (4.10), but converting other expressions that happen to have value zero need not yield a null pointer.Where is this supported in normative text? It seems that either the footnote or paragraph 8 doesn't reflect the intent.
SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: I think it would be better to drop the footnote #64 (and thus the special case for ICEs), for two reasons:
a) it's not normative anyway; so I doubt anyone is relying on the guarantee it hints at, unless that guarantee is given elsewhere in a normative part
b) users expect reinterpret_casts to be almost always implementation dependent, so this special case is a surprise. After all, if one wants a null pointer there's static_cast. And if one wants reinterpret_cast semantics the special case requires doing some explicit cheat, such as using a non-const variable as intermediary:
int v = 0; reinterpret_cast<T*>(v); // implementation defined reinterpret_cast<T*>(0); // null pointer value of type T* const int w = 0; reinterpret_cast<T*>(w); // null pointer value of type T*
It seems that not only that's providing a duplicate functionality, but also at the cost to hide what seems the more natural one.
Notes from October 2004 meeting:
This footnote was added in 1996, after the invention of reinterpret_cast, so the presumption must be that it was intentional. At this time, however, the CWG feels that there is no reason to require that reinterpret_cast<T*>(0) produce a null pointer value as its result.
Proposed resolution (April, 2005):
Delete the footnote in 5.2.10 expr.reinterpret.cast paragraph 5 reading,
Converting an integral constant expression (5.19 expr.const) with value zero always yields a null pointer (4.10 conv.ptr), but converting other expressions that happen to have value zero need not yield a null pointer.
Add the indicated note to 5.2.10 expr.reinterpret.cast paragraph 8:
The null pointer value (4.10 conv.ptr) is converted to the null pointer value of the destination type. [Note: A null pointer constant, which has integral type, is not necessarily converted to a null pointer value. —end note]
[Voted into WP at October 2003 meeting.]
An assignment returns an lvalue for its left operand. If that operand refers to a bit field, can the "&" operator be applied to the assignment? Can a reference be bound to it?
struct S { int a:3; int b:3; int c:3; };
void f()
{
struct S s;
const int *p = &(s.b = 0); // (a)
const int &r = (s.b = 0); // (b)
int &r2 = (s.b = 0); // (c)
}
Notes from the 4/02 meeting:
The working group agreed that this should be an error.
Proposed resolution (October 2002):
In 5.3.2 expr.pre.incr paragraph 1 (prefix "++" and "--" operators), change
The value is the new value of the operand; it is an lvalue.to
The result is the updated operand; it is an lvalue, and it is a bit-field if the operand is a bit-field.
In 5.16 expr.cond paragraph 4 ("?" operator), add the indicated text:
If the second and third operands are lvalues and have the same type, the result is of that type and is an lvalue and it is a bit-field if the second or the third operand is a bit-field, or if both are bit-fields.
In 5.17 expr.ass paragraph 1 (assignment operators) add the indicated text (the original text is as updated by issue 221, which is DR but not in TC1):
The assignment operator (=) and the compound assignment operators all group right-to-left. All require a modifiable lvalue as their left operand and return an lvalue with the type and value of the left operand after the assignment has taken place. The result in all cases is a bit-field if the left operand is a bit-field.
Note that issue 222 adds (non-conflicting) text at the end of this same paragraph (5.17 expr.ass paragraph 1).
In 5.18 expr.comma paragraph 1 (comma operator), change:
The type and value of the result are the type and value of the right operand; the result is an lvalue if its right operand is.to
The type and value of the result are the type and value of the right operand; the result is an lvalue if the right operand is an lvalue, and is a bit-field if the right operand is an lvalue and a bit-field.
Relevant related text (no changes required):
5.3.1 expr.unary.op paragraph 4:
The operand of & shall not be a bit-field.
8.5.3 dcl.init.ref paragraph 5, bullet 1, sub-bullet 1 (regarding binding a reference to an lvalue):
... is an lvalue (but is not a bit-field) ...
[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]
In 5.3.4 expr.new, the standard says that the expression in an array-new has to have integral type. There's already a DR (issue 74) that says it should also be allowed to have enumeration type. But, it should probably also say that it can have a class type with a single conversion to integral type; in other words the same thing as in 6.4.2 stmt.switch paragraph 2.
Suggested resolution:
In 5.3.4 expr.new paragraph 6, replace "integral or enumeration type (3.9.1 basic.fundamental)" with "integral or enumeration type (3.9.1 basic.fundamental), or a class type for which a single conversion function to integral or enumeration type exists".
Proposed resolution (October, 2004):
Change 5.3.4 expr.new paragraph 6 as follows:
Every constant-expression in a direct-new-declarator shall be an integral constant expression (5.19 expr.const) and evaluate to a strictly positive value. The expression in a direct-new-declarator shallhavebe of integral type,orenumeration type(3.9.1), or a class type for which a single conversion function to integral or enumeration type exists (12.3 class.conv). If the expression is of class type, the expression is converted by calling the conversion function, and the result of the conversion is used in place of the original expression. The value of the expression shall bewith anon-negativevalue. [Example: ...
Proposed resolution (April, 2005):
Change 5.3.4 expr.new paragraph 6 as follows:
Every constant-expression in a direct-new-declarator shall be an integral constant expression (5.19 expr.const) and evaluate to a strictly positive value. The expression in a direct-new-declarator shallhave integral or enumeration type (3.9.1 basic.fundamental) with a non-negative valuebe of integral type, enumeration type, or a class type for which a single conversion function to integral or enumeration type exists (12.3 class.conv). If the expression is of class type, the expression is converted by calling that conversion function, and the result of the conversion is used in place of the original expression. If the value of the expression is negative, the behavior is undefined. [Example: ...
[Voted into WP at October 2004 meeting.]
What does this example do?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct A {
void* operator new(size_t alloc_size, size_t dummy=0) {
printf("A::operator new()\n");
return malloc(alloc_size);
};
void operator delete(void* p, size_t s) {
printf("A::delete %d\n", s);
};
A() {printf("A constructing\n"); throw 2;};
};
int
main() {
try {
A* ap = new A;
delete ap;
}
catch(int) {printf("caught\n"); return 1;}
}
The fundamental issue here is whether the deletion-on-throw is driven by the syntax of the new (placement or non-placement) or by signature matching. If the former, the operator delete would be called with the second argument equal to the size of the class. If the latter, it would be called with the second argument 0.
Core issue 127 (in TC1) dealt with this topic. It removed some wording in 15.2 except.ctor paragraph 2 that implied a syntax-based interpretation, leaving wording in 5.3.4 expr.new paragraph 19 that is signature-based. But there is no accompanying rationale to confirm an explicit choice of the signature-based approach.
EDG and g++ get 0 for the second argument, matching the presumed core issue 127 resolution. But maybe this should be revisited.
Notes from October 2003 meeting:
There was widespread agreement that the compiler shouldn't just silently call the delete with either of the possible values. In the end, we decided it's smarter to issue an error on this case and force the programmer to say what he means.
Mike Miller's analysis of the status quo: 3.7.3.2 basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation paragraph 2 says that "operator delete(void*, std::size_t)" is a "usual (non-placement) deallocation function" if the class does not declare "operator delete(void*)." 3.7.3.1 basic.stc.dynamic.allocation does not use the same terminology for allocation functions, but the most reasonable way to understand the uses of the term "placement allocation function" in the Standard is as an allocation function that has more than one parameter and thus can (but need not) be called using the "new-placement" syntax described in 5.3.4 expr.new. (In considering issue 127, the core group discussed and endorsed the position that, "If a placement allocation function has default arguments for all its parameters except the first, it can be called using non-placement syntax.")
5.3.4 expr.new paragraph 19 says that any non-placement deallocation function matches a non-placement allocation function, and that a placement deallocation function matches a placement allocation function with the same parameter types after the first -- i.e., a non-placement deallocation function cannot match a placement allocation function. This makes sense, because non-placement ("usual") deallocation functions expect to free memory obtained from the system heap, which might not be the case for storage resulting from calling a placement allocation function.
According to this analysis, the example shows a placement allocation function and a non-placement deallocation function, so the deallocation function should not be invoked at all, and the memory will just leak.
Proposed Resolution (October 2003):
Add the following text at the end of 5.3.4 expr.new paragraph 19:
If the lookup finds the two-parameter form of a usual deallocation function (3.7.3.2 basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation), and that function, considered as a placement deallocation function, would have been selected as a match for the allocation function, the program is ill-formed. [Example:--- end example]struct S { // Placement allocation function: static void* operator new(std::size_t, std::size_t); // Usual (non-placement) deallocation function: static void operator delete(void*, std::size_t); }; S* p = new (0) S; // ill-formed: non-placement deallocation function matches // placement allocation function
[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]
In a couple of comp.std.c++ threads, people have asked whether the Standard guarantees that the deallocation function will be called in a delete-expression if the destructor throws an exception. Most/all people have expressed the opinion that the deallocation function must be called in this case, although no one has been able to cite wording in the Standard supporting that view.
#include <new.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
static int flag = 0;
inline
void operator delete(void* p) throw()
{
if (flag)
printf("in deallocation function\n");
free(p);
}
struct S {
~S() { throw 0; }
};
void f() {
try {
delete new S;
}
catch(...) { }
}
int main() {
flag=1;
f();
flag=0;
return 0;
}
Proposed resolution (October 2002):
Add to 5.3.5 expr.delete paragraph 7 the highlighted text:
The delete-expression will call a deallocation function (3.7.3.2 basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation) [Note: The deallocation function is called regardless of whether the destructor for the object or some element of the array throws an exception. ]
[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]
After some discussion in comp.lang.c++.moderated we came to the conclusion that there seems to be a defect in 5.3.5 expr.delete/4, which says:
The cast-expression in a delete-expression shall be evaluated exactly once. If the delete-expression calls the implementation deallocation function (3.7.3.2), and if the operand of the delete expression is not the null pointer constant, the deallocation function will deallocate the storage referenced by the pointer thus rendering the pointer invalid. [Note: the value of a pointer that refers to deallocated storage is indeterminate. ]
In the second sentence, the term "null pointer constant" should be changed to "null pointer". In its present form, the passage claims that the deallocation function will deallocate the storage refered to by a null pointer that did not come from a null pointer constant in the delete expression. Besides, how can the null pointer constant be the operand of a delete expression, as "delete 0" is an error because delete requires a pointer type or a class type having a single conversion function to a pointer type?
See also issue 348.
Proposed resolution:
Change the indicated sentence of 5.3.5 expr.delete paragraph 4 as follows:
If the delete-expression calls the implementation deallocation function (3.7.3.2 basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation), and if the value of the operand of the delete expression is notthea null pointerconstant, the deallocation function will deallocate the storage referenced by the pointer thus rendering the pointer invalid.
Notes from October 2004 meeting:
This wording is superseded by, and this issue will be resolved by, the resolution of issue 348.
Proposed resolution (April, 2005):
This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 348.
[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]
5.5 expr.mptr.oper paragraph 5 contains the following example:
struct S {
mutable int i;
};
const S cs;
int S::* pm = &S::i; // pm refers to mutable member S::i
cs.*pm = 88; // ill-formed: cs is a const object
The const object cs is not explicitly initialized, and class S does not have a user-declared default constructor. This makes the code ill-formed as per 8.5 dcl.init paragraph 9.
Proposed resolution (April, 2005):
Change the example in 5.5 expr.mptr.oper paragraph 5 to read as follows:
struct S {
S() : i(0) { }
mutable int i;
};
void f()
{
const S cs;
int S::* pm = &S::i; // pm refers to mutable member S::i
cs.*pm = 88; // ill-formed: cs is a const object
}
[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]
The problem occurs when the value of the operator is determined to be an rvalue, the selected argument is an lvalue, the type is a class type and a non-const member is invoked on the modifiable rvalue result.
struct B {
int v;
B (int v) : v(v) { }
void inc () { ++ v; }
};
struct D : B {
D (int v) : B(v) { }
};
B b1(42);
(0 ? B(13) : b1).inc();
assert(b1.v == 42);
The types of the second and third operands are the same and one is an rvalue. Nothing changes until p6 where an lvalue to rvalue conversion is performed on the third operand. 12.2 class.temporary states that an lvalue to rvalue conversion produces a temporary and there is nothing to remove it. It seems clear that the assertion must pass, yet most implementations fail.
There seems to be a defect in p3 b2 b1. First, the conditions to get here and pass the test.
If E1 and E2 have class type, and the underlying class types are the same or one is a base class of the other: E1 can be converted to match E2 if the class of T2 is the same type as, or a base class of, the class of T1, and the cv-qualification of T2 is the same cv-qualification as, or a greater cv-qualification than, the cv-qualification of T1.
If both E1 and E2 are lvalues, passing the conditions here also passes the conditions for p3 b1. Thus, at least one is an rvalue. The case of two rvalues is not interesting and the action is covered by the case when E1 is an rvalue.
(0 ? D(13) : b1).inc();
assert(b1.v == 42);
E1 is changed to an rvalue of type T2 that still refers to the original source class object (or the appropriate subobject thereof). [Note: that is, no copy is made. ]
Having changed the rvalue to base type, we are back to the above case where an lvalue to rvalue conversion is required on the third operand at p6. Again, most implementations fail.
The remaining case, E1 an lvalue and E2 an rvalue, is the defect.
D d1(42);
(0 ? B(13) : d1).inc();
assert(d1.v == 42);
The above quote states that an lvalue of type T1 is changed to an rvalue of type T2 without creating a temporary. This is in contradiction to everything else in the standard about lvalue to rvalue conversions. Most implementations pass in spite of the defect.
The usual accessible and unambiguous is missing from the base class.
There seems to be two possible solutions. Following other temporary creations would produce a temporary rvalue of type T1 and change it to an rvalue of type T2. Keeping the no copy aspect of this bullet intact would change the lvalue of type T1 to an lvalue of type T2. In this case the lvalue to rvalue conversion would happen in p6 as usual.
Suggested wording for p3 b2 b1
The base part:
If E1 and E2 have class type, and the underlying class types are the same or one is a base class of the other: E1 can be converted to match E2 if the class of T2 is the same type as, or an accessible and unambiguous base class of, the class of T1, and the cv-qualification of T2 is the same cv-qualification as, or a greater cv-qualification than, the cv-qualification of T1. If the conversion is applied:
The same type temporary version:
If E1 is an lvalue, an lvalue to rvalue conversion is applied. The resulting or original rvalue is changed to an rvalue of type T2 that refers to the same class object (or the appropriate subobject thereof). [Note: that is, no copy is made in changing the type of the rvalue. ]
The never copy version:
The lvalue(rvalue) E1 is changed to an lvalue(rvalue) of type T2 that refers to the original class object (or the appropriate subobject thereof). [Note: that is, no copy is made. ]
The test case was posted to clc++m and results for implementations were reported.
#include <cassert>
struct B {
int v;
B (int v) : v(v) { }
void inc () { ++ v; }
};
struct D : B {
D (int v) : B(v) { }
};
int main () {
B b1(42);
D d1(42);
(0 ? B(13) : b1).inc();
assert(b1.v == 42);
(0 ? D(13) : b1).inc();
assert(b1.v == 42);
(0 ? B(13) : d1).inc();
assert(d1.v == 42);
}
// CbuilderX(EDG301) FFF Rob Williscroft
// ICC-8.0 FFF Alexander Stippler
// COMO-4.301 FFF Alexander Stippler
// BCC-5.4 FFP Rob Williscroft
// BCC32-5.5 FFP John Potter
// BCC32-5.65 FFP Rob Williscroft
// VC-6.0 FFP Stephen Howe
// VC-7.0 FFP Ben Hutchings
// VC-7.1 FFP Stephen Howe
// OpenWatcom-1.1 FFP Stephen Howe
// Sun C++-6.2 PFF Ron Natalie
// GCC-3.2 PFP John Potter
// GCC-3.3 PFP Alexander Stippler
// GCC-2.95 PPP Ben Hutchings
// GCC-3.4 PPP Florian Weimer
I see no defect with regards to lvalue to rvalue conversions; however, there seems to be disagreement about what it means by implementers. It may not be surprising because 5.16 and passing a POD struct to an ellipsis are the only places where an lvalue to rvalue conversion applies to a class type. Most lvalue to rvalue conversions are on basic types as operands of builtin operators.
Notes from the March 2004 meeting:
We decided all "?" operators that return a class rvalue should copy the second or third operand to a temporary. See issue 86.
Proposed resolution (October 2004):
Change 5.16 expr.cond paragraph 3 bullet 2 sub-bullet 1 as follows:
if E1 and E2 have class type, and the underlying class types are the same or one is a base class of the other: E1 can be converted to match E2 if the class of T2 is the same type as, or a base class of, the class of T1, and the cv-qualification of T2 is the same cv-qualification as, or a greater cv-qualification than, the cv-qualification of T1. If the conversion is applied, E1 is changed to an rvalue of type T2that still refers to the original source class object (or the appropriate subobject thereof). [Note: that is, no copy is made. —end note]by copy-initializing a temporary of type T2 from E1 and using that temporary as the converted operand.
Change 5.16 expr.cond paragraph 6 bullet 1 as follows:
The second and third operands have the same type; the result is of that type. If the operands have class type, the result is an rvalue temporary of the result type, which is copy-initialized from either the second operand or the third operand depending on the value of the first operand.
Change 4.1 conv.lval paragraph 2 as follows:
The value contained in the object indicated by the lvalue is the rvalue result.When an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion occurs within the operand of sizeof (5.3.3 expr.sizeof) the value contained in the referenced object is not accessed, since that operator does not evaluate its operand. Otherwise, if the lvalue has a class type, the conversion copy-initializes a temporary of type T from the lvalue and the result of the conversion is an rvalue for the temporary. Otherwise, the value contained in the object indicated by the lvalue is the rvalue result.
[Note: this wording partially resolves issue 86. See also issue 462.]
[Voted into WP at October 2003 meeting.]
According to 16.1 cpp.cond paragraph 1, the if-group
#if "Hello, world"
is well-formed, since it is an integral constant expression. Since that may not be obvious, here is why:
5.19 expr.const paragraph 1 says that an integral constant expression may involve literals (2.13 lex.literal); "Hello, world" is a literal. It restricts operators to not use certain type conversions; this expression does not use type conversions. It further disallows functions, class objects, pointers, ... - this expression is none of those, since it is an array.
However, 16.1 cpp.cond paragraph 6 does not explain what to do with this if-group, since the expression evaluates neither to false(zero) nor true(non-zero).
Proposed resolution (October 2002):
Change the beginning of the second sentence of 5.19 expr.const paragraph 1 which currently reads
An integral constant-expression can involve only literals (2.13 lex.literal), ...to say
An integral constant-expression can involve only literals of arithmetic types (2.13 lex.literal, 3.9.1 basic.fundamental), ...
[Voted into WP at April 2005 meeting.]
I'm looking at 5.19 expr.const. I see:
An integral constant-expression can involve only ... const variables or static data members of integral or enumeration types initialized with constant expressions ...
Shouldn't that be "const non-volatile"?
It seems weird to say that:
const volatile int i = 3; int j[i];is valid.
Steve Adamczyk: See issue 76, which made the similar change to 7.1.5.1 dcl.type.cv paragraph 2, and probably should have changed this one as well.
Proposed resolution (October, 2004):
Change the first sentence in the second part of 5.19 expr.const paragraph 1 as follows:
An integral constant-expression can involve only literals of arithmetic types (2.13 lex.literal, 3.9.1 basic.fundamental), enumerators, non-volatile const variables or static data members of integral or enumeration types initialized with constant expressions (8.5 dcl.init), non-type template parameters of integral or enumeration types, and sizeof expressions.
[Moved to DR at October 2002 meeting.]
There is currently no restriction on the use of the inline specifier in friend declarations. That would mean that the following usage is permitted:
struct A {
void f();
};
struct B {
friend inline void A::f();
};
void A::f(){}
I believe this should be disallowed because a friend declaration in one class should not be able to change attributes of a member function of another class.
More generally, I think that the inline attribute should only be permitted in friend declarations that are definitions.
Notes from the 04/01 meeting:
The consensus agreed with the suggested resolution. This outcome would be similar to the resolution of issue 136.
Proposed resolution (10/01):
Add to the end of 7.1.2 dcl.fct.spec paragraph 3:
If the inline specifier is used in a friend declaration, that declaration shall be a definition or the function shall have previously been declared inline.
[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]
Steve Clamage: Consider this sequence of declarations:
void foo() { ... }
inline void foo();
The non-inline definition of foo precedes the inline declaration.
It seems to me this code should be ill-formed, but I could not find
anything in the standard to cover the situation.
Bjarne Stroustrup: Neither could I, so I looked in the ARM, which addressed this case (apparently for member function only) in some detail in 7.1.2 (pp103-104).
The ARM allows declaring a function inline after its initial declaration, as long as it has not been called.
Steve Clamage: If the above code is valid, how about this:
void foo() { ... } // define foo
void bar() { foo(); } // use foo
inline void foo(); // declare foo inline
Bjarne Stroustrup: ... and [the ARM] disallows declaring a function inline after it has been called.
This may still be a good resolution.
Steve Clamage: But the situation in the ARM is the reverse: Declare a function inline, and define it later (with no intervening call). That's a long-standing rule in C++, and allows you to write member function definitions outside the class.
In my example, the compiler could reasonably process the entire function as out-of-line, and not discover the inline declaration until it was too late to save the information necessary for inline generation. The equivalent of another compiler pass would be needed to handle this situation.
Bjarne Stroustrup: I see, and I think your argument it conclusive.
Steve Clamage: I'd like to open a core issue on this point, and I recommend wording along the lines of: "A function defined without an inline specifier shall not be followed by a declaration having an inline specifier."
I'd still like to allow the common idiom
class T {
int f();
};
inline int T::f() { ... }
Martin Sebor: Since the inline keyword is just a hint to the compiler, I don't see any harm in allowing the construct. Your hypothetical compiler can simply ignore the inline on the second declaration. On the other hand, I feel that adding another special rule will unnecessarily complicate the language.
Steve Clamage: The inline specifier is more than a hint. You can have multiple definitions of inline functions, but only one definition of a function not declared inline. In particular, suppose the above example were in a header file, and included multiple times in a program.
Proposed resolution (October, 2004):
Add the indicated words to 7.1.2 dcl.fct.spec paragraph 4:
An inline function shall be defined in every translation unit in which it is used and shall have exactly the same definition in every case (3.2 basic.def.odr). [Note: a call to the inline function may be encountered before its definition appears in the translation unit. —end note] If the definition of a function appears in a translation unit before its first declaration as inline, the program is ill-formed. If a function with external linkage is declared inline in one translation unit...
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
BTW, I noticed that the following note in 7.1.1 dcl.stc paragraph 2 doesn't seem to have made it onto the issues list or into the TR:
[Note: hence, the auto specifier is almost always redundant and not often used; one use of auto is to distinguish a declaration-statement from an expression-statement (stmt.ambig) explicitly. --- end note]
I thought that this was well known to be incorrect, because using auto does not disambiguate this. Writing:
auto int f();is still a declaration of a function f, just now with an error since the function's return type may not use an auto storage class specifier. I suppose an error is an improvement over a silent ambiguity going the wrong way, but it's still not a solution for the user who wants to express the other in a compilable way.
Proposed resolution: Replace that note with the following note:
[Note: hence, the auto specifier is always redundant and not often used. --- end note]
John Spicer: I support the proposed change, but I think the disambiguation case is not the one that you describe. An example of the supposed disambiguation is:
int i;
int j;
int main()
{
int(i); // declares i, not reference to ::i
auto int(j); // declares j, not reference to ::j
}
cfront would take "int(i)" as a cast of ::i, so the auto would force what it would otherwise treat as a statement to be considered a declaration (cfront 3.0 warned that this would change in the future).
In a conforming compiler the auto is always redundant (as you say) because anything that could be considered a valid declaration should be treated as one.
Proposed resolution (April 2003):
Replace 7.1.1 dcl.stc paragraph 2
[Note: hence, the auto specifier is almost always redundant and not often used; one use of auto is to distinguish a declaration-statement from an expression-statement (6.8 stmt.ambig) explicitly. --- end note]with
[Note: hence, the auto specifier is always redundant and not often used. One use of auto is to distinguish a declaration-statement from an expression-statement explicitly rather than relying on the disambiguation rules (6.8 stmt.ambig), which may aid readers. --- end note]
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
I wonder if perhaps the core issue 56 change in 7.1.3 dcl.typedef paragraph 2 wasn't quite careful enough. The intent was to remove the allowance for:
struct S {
typedef int I;
typedef int I;
};
but I think it also disallows the following:
class B {
typedef struct A {} A;
void f(struct B::A*p);
};
See also issue 407.
Proposed resolution (October 2003):
At the end of 7.1.3 dcl.typedef paragraph 2, add the following:
In a given class scope, a typedef specifier can be used to redefine
any class-name declared in that scope that is not
also a typedef-name
to refer to the type to which it already refers. [Example:
struct S {
typedef struct A {} A; // OK
typedef struct B B; // OK
typedef A A; // error
};
]
[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]
Although 14.1 temp.param paragraph 3 contains an assertion that
A type-parameter defines its identifier to be a type-name (if declared with class or typename)
the grammar in 7.1.5.2 dcl.type.simple paragraph 1 says that a type-name is either a class-name, an enum-name, or a typedef-name. The identifier in a template type-parameter is none of those. One possibility might be to equate the identifier with a typedef-name instead of directly with a type-name, which would have the advantage of not requiring parallel treatment of the two in situations where they are treated the same (e.g., in elaborated-type-specifiers, see issue 245). See also issue 215.
Proposed resolution (Clark Nelson, March 2002):
In 14.1 temp.param paragraph 3, change "A type-parameter defines its identifier to be a type-name" to "A type-parameter defines its identifier to be a typedef-name"
In 7.1.5.3 dcl.type.elab paragraph 2, change "If the identifier resolves to a typedef-name or a template type-parameter" to "If the identifier resolves to a typedef-name".
This has been consolidated with the edits for some other issues. See N1376=02-0034.
[Moved to DR at October 2002 meeting.]
According to 7.2 dcl.enum paragraph 5, the underlying type of an enum is an unspecified integral type, which could potentially be unsigned int. The promotion rules in 4.5 conv.prom paragraph 2 say that such an enumeration value used in an expression will be promoted to unsigned int. This means that a conforming implementation could give the value false for the following code:
enum { zero };
-1 < zero; // might be false
This is counterintuitive. Perhaps the description of the underlying
type of an enumeration should say that an unsigned underlying type
can be used only if the values of the enumerators cannot be
represented in the corresponding signed type. This approach would
be consistent with the treatment of integral promotion of
bitfields (4.5
conv.prom
paragraph 3).
On a related note, 7.2 dcl.enum paragraph 5 says,
the underlying type shall not be larger than int unless the value of an enumerator cannot fit in an int or unsigned int.
This specification does not allow for an enumeration like
enum { a = -1, b = UINT_MAX };
Since each enumerator can fit in an int or unsigned int, the underlying type is required to be no larger than int, even though there is no such type that can represent all the enumerators.
Proposed resolution (04/01; obsolete, see below):
Change 7.2 dcl.enum paragraph 5 as follows:
It is implementation-defined which integral type is used as the underlying type for an enumeration except that the underlying type shall not be larger than int unlessthe value of an enumerator cannot fit in an int or unsigned intneither int nor unsigned int can represent all the enumerator values. Furthermore, the underlying type shall not be an unsigned type if the corresponding signed type can represent all the enumerator values.
See also issue 58.
Notes from 04/01 meeting:
It was noted that 4.5 conv.prom promotes unsigned types smaller than int to (signed) int. The signedness chosen by an implementation for small underlying types is therefore unobservable, so the last sentence of the proposed resolution above should apply only to int and larger types. This observation also prompted discussion of an alternative approach to resolving the issue, in which the bmin and bmax of the enumeration would determine the promoted type rather than the underlying type.
Proposed resolution (10/01):
Change 4.5 conv.prom paragraph 2 from
An rvalue of type wchar_t (3.9.1 basic.fundamental) or an enumeration type (7.2 dcl.enum) can be converted to an rvalue of the first of the following types that can represent all the values of its underlying type: int, unsigned int, long, or unsigned long.to
An rvalue of type wchar_t (3.9.1 basic.fundamental) can be converted to an rvalue of the first of the following types that can represent all the values of its underlying type: int, unsigned int, long, or unsigned long. An rvalue of an enumeration type (7.2 dcl.enum) can be converted to an rvalue of the first of the following types that can represent all the values of the enumeration (i.e., the values in the range bmin to bmax as described in 7.2 dcl.enum): int, unsigned int, long, or unsigned long.
[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]
7.2 dcl.enum defines the underlying type of an enumeration as an integral type "that can represent all the enumerator values defined in the enumeration".
What does the standard say about this code:
enum E { a = LONG_MIN, b = ULONG_MAX };
?
I think this should be ill-formed.
Proposed resolution:
In 7.2 dcl.enum paragraph 5 after
The underlying type of an enumeration is an integral type that can represent all the enumerator values defined in the enumeration.insert
If no integral type can represent all the enumerator values, the enumeration is ill-formed.
[Voted into WP at April, 2006 meeting.]
The C language (since C99), and some C++ compilers, accept:
enum { FOO, };
as syntactically valid. It would be useful
for machine generated code
for minimising changes when editing
to allow a distinction between the final item being intended as an ordinary item or as a limit:
enum { red, green, blue, num_colours }; // note no comma
enum { fred, jim, sheila, }; // last is not special
This proposed change is to permit a trailing comma in enum by adding:
enum identifieropt { enumerator-list , }
as an alternative definition for the enum-specifier nonterminal
in
Proposed resolution (October, 2005):
Change the grammar in 7.2 dcl.enum paragraph 1 as indicated:
enum-specifier:enum identifieropt { enumerator-listopt }
enum identifieropt { enumerator-list , }
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
Issue 1:
The working paper is not clear about how the typename/template keywords interact with using-declarations:
template<class T> struct A {
typedef int X;
};
template<class T> void f() {
typename A<T>::X a; // OK
using typename A<T>::X; // OK
typename X b; // ill-formed; X must be qualified
X c; // is this OK?
}
When the rules for typename and the similar use of template
were decided, we chose to require that they be used at every reference.
The way to avoid typename at every use is to declare a typedef;
then the typedef name itself is known to be a type. For using-declarations,
we decided that they do not introduce new declarations but rather are aliases
for existing declarations, like symbolic links. This makes it unclear whether
the declaration "X c;" above should be well-formed, because there
is no new name declared so there is no declaration with a "this is a type"
attribute. (The same problem would occur with the template keyword
when a member template of a dependent class is used). I think these are
the main options:
The core WG already resolved this issue according to (1), but the wording does not seem to have been added to the standard. New wording needs to be drafted.
Issue 2:
Either way, one more point needs clarification. If the first option is adopted:
template<class T> struct A {
struct X { };
};
template<class T> void g() {
using typename A<T>::X;
X c; // if this is OK, then X by itself is a type
int X; // is this OK?
}
When "g" is instantiated, the two declarations of X are compatible
(7.3.3
namespace.udecl
paragraph 10).
But there is no way to know this when the definition of "g" is
compiled. I think this case should be ill-formed under the first option.
(It cannot happen under the second option.) If the second option is adopted:
template<class T> struct A {
struct X { };
};
template<class T> void g() {
using A<T>::X;
int X; // is this OK?
}
Again, the instantiation would work but there is no way to know that in
the template definition. I think this case should be ill-formed under the
second option. (It would already be ill-formed under the first option.)
From John Spicer:
The "not a new declaration" decision is more of a guiding principle than a hard and fast rule. For example, a name introduced in a using-declaration can have different access than the original declaration.Tentative Resolution:Like symbolic links, a using-declaration can be viewed as a declaration that declares an alias to another name, much like a typedef.
In my opinion, "X c;" is already well-formed. Why would we permit typename to be used in a using-declaration if not to permit this precise usage?
In my opinion, all that needs to be done is to clarify that the "typeness" or "templateness" attribute of the name referenced in the using-declaration is attached to the alias created by the using-declaration. This is solution #1.
The rules for multiple declarations with the same name in the same scope should treat a using-declaration which names a type as a typedef, just as a typedef of a class name is treated as a class declaration. This needs drafting work. Also see Core issue 36.
Rationale (04/99): Any semantics associated with the typename keyword in using-declarations should be considered an extension.
Notes from the April 2003 meeting:
This was reopened because we are now considering extensions again. We agreed that it is desirable for the typename to be "sticky" on a using-declaration, i.e., references to the name introduced by the using-declaration are known to be type names without the use of the typename keyword (which can't be specified on an unqualified name anyway, as of now). The related issue with the template keyword already has a separate issue 109.
Issue 2 deals with the "struct hack." There is an example in 7.3.3 namespace.udecl paragraph 10 that shows a use of using-declarations to import two names that coexist because of the "struct hack." After some deliberation, we decided that the template-dependent using-declaration case is different enough that we did not have to support the "struct hack" in that case. A name introduced in such a case is like a typedef, and no other hidden type can be accessed through an elaborated type specifier.
Proposed resolution (April 2003, revised October 2003):
Add a new paragraph to the bottom of 7.3.3 namespace.udecl:
If a using-declaration uses the keyword typename and specifies a dependent name (14.6.2 temp.dep), the name introduced by the using-declaration is treated as a typedef-name (7.1.3 dcl.typedef).
[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]
According to 7.3.3 namespace.udecl paragraph 12,
When a using-declaration brings names from a base class into a derived class scope, member functions in the derived class override and/or hide member functions with the same name and parameter types in a base class (rather than conflicting).
Note that this description says nothing about the cv-qualification of the hiding and hidden member functions. This means, for instance, that a non-const member function in the derived class hides a const member function with the same name and parameter types instead of overloading it in the derived class scope. For example,
struct A {
virtual int f() const;
virtual int f();
};
struct B: A {
B();
int f();
using A::f;
};
const B cb;
int i = cb.f(); // ill-formed: A::f() const hidden in B
The same terminology is used in 10.3 class.virtual paragraph 2:
If a virtual member function vf is declared in a class Base and in a class Derived, derived directly or indirectly from Base, a member function vf with the same name and same parameter list as Base::vf is declared, then Derived::vf is also virtual (whether or not it is so declared) and it overrides Base::vf.
Notes on the 04/01 meeting:
The hiding and overriding should be on the basis of the function signature, which includes any cv-qualification on the function.
Proposed resolution (04/02):
In 7.3.3 namespace.udecl paragraph 12 change:
When a using-declaration brings names from a base class into a derived class scope, member functions in the derived class override and/or hide member functions with the same name and parameter types in a base class (rather than conflicting).to read:
When a using-declaration brings names from a base class into a derived class scope, member functions and member function templates in the derived class override and/or hide member functions and member function templates with the same name, parameter-type-list (8.3.5 dcl.fct), and cv-qualification in a base class (rather than conflicting).
In 10.3 class.virtual paragraph 2 change:
If a virtual member function vf is declared in a class Base and in a class Derived, derived directly or indirectly from Base, a member function vf with the same name and same parameter list as Base::vf is declared, then Derived::vf is also virtual (whether or not it is so declared) and it overrides Base::vf.to read:
If a virtual member function vf is declared in a class Base and in a class Derived, derived directly or indirectly from Base, a member function vf with the same name, parameter-type-list (8.3.5 dcl.fct), and cv-qualification as Base::vf is declared, then Derived::vf is also virtual (whether or not it is so declared) and it overrides Base::vf.
See issue 140 for the definition of parameter-type-list.
[Voted into WP at April 2005 meeting.]
Can a using-declaration be used to import a namespace?
namespace my_namespace{
namespace my_namespace2 {
int function_of_my_name_space(){ return 2;}
}
}
int main (){
using ::my_namespace::my_namespace2;
return my_namespace2::function_of_my_name_space();
}
Several popular compilers give an error on this, but there doesn't seem to be anything in 7.3.3 namespace.udecl that prohibits it. It should be noted that the user can get the same effect by using a namespace alias:
namespace my_namespace2 = ::my_namespace::my_namespace2;
Notes from the March 2004 meeting:
We agree that it should be an error.
Proposed resolution (October, 2004):
Add the following as a new paragraph after 7.3.3 namespace.udecl paragraph 5:
A using-declaration shall not name a namespace;
[Moved to DR at 4/01 meeting.]
7.5 dcl.link paragraph 6 says the following:
extern "C" {
static void f(int) {}
static void f(float) {}
};
Can a function with internal linkage "have C linkage" at all (assuming
that phrase means "has extern "C" linkage"), for how can a function be
extern "C" if it's not extern? The function type can have extern
"C" linkage — but I think that's independent of the linkage of the function
name. It should be perfectly reasonable to say, in the example above,
that extern "C" applies only to the types of f(int) and f(float),
not to the function names, and that the rule in 7.5
dcl.link
paragraph 6 doesn't apply.
Suggested resolution: The extern "C" linkage specification applies only to the type of functions with internal linkage, and therefore some of the rules that have to do with name overloading don't apply.
Proposed Resolution:
The intent is to distingush implicit linkage from explicit linkage for both name linkage and language (function type) linkage. (It might be more clear to use the terms name linkage and type linkage to distinguish these concepts. A function can have a name with one kind of linkage and a type with a different kind of linkage. The function itself has no linkage: it has no name, only the declaration has a name. This becomes more obvious when you consider function pointers.)
The tentatively agreed proposal is to apply implicit linkage to names declared in brace-enclosed linkage specifications and to non-top-level names declared in simple linkage specifications; and to apply explicit linkage to top-level names declared in simple linkage specifications.
The language linkage of any function type formed through a function declarator is that of the nearest enclosing linkage-specification. For purposes of determining whether the declaration of a namespace-scope name matches a previous declaration, the language linkage portion of the type of a function declaration (that is, the language linkage of the function itself, not its parameters, return type or exception specification) is ignored.
For a linkage-specification using braces, i.e.
extern string-literal { declaration-seqopt }the linkage of any declaration of a namespace-scope name (including local externs) which is not contained in a nested linkage-specification, is not declared to have no linkage (static), and does not match a previous declaration is given the linkage specified in the string-literal. The language linkage of the type of any function declaration of a namespace-scope name (including local externs) which is not contained in a nested linkage-specification and which is declared with function declarator syntax is the same as that of a matching previous declaration, if any, else is specified by string-literal.
For a linkage-specification without braces, i.e.
extern string-literal declaration
the linkage of the names declared in the top-level declarators of declaration is specified by string-literal; if this conflicts with the linkage of any matching previous declarations, the program is ill-formed. The language linkage of the type of any top-level function declarator is specified by string-literal; if this conflicts with the language linkage of the type of any matching previous function declarations, the program is ill-formed. The effect of the linkage-specification on other (non top-level) names declared in declaration is the same as that of the brace-enclosed form.
Bill Gibbons: In particular, these should be well-formed:
extern "C" void f(void (*fp)()); // parameter type is pointer to
// function with C language linkage
extern "C++" void g(void (*fp)()); // parameter type is pointer to
// function with C++ language linkage
extern "C++" { // well-formed: the linkage of "f"
void f(void(*fp)()); // and the function type used in the
} // parameter still "C"
extern "C" { // well-formed: the linkage of "g"
void g(void(*fp)()); // and the function type used in the
} // parameter still "C++"
but these should not:
extern "C++" void f(void(*fp)()); // error - linkage of "f" does not
// match previous declaration
// (linkage of function type used in
// parameter is still "C" and is not
// by itself ill-formed)
extern "C" void g(void(*fp)()); // error - linkage of "g" does not
// match previous declaration
// (linkage of function type used in
// parameter is still "C++" and is not
// by itself ill-formed)
That is, non-top-level declarators get their linkage from matching declarations, if any, else from the nearest enclosing linkage specification. (As already described, top-level declarators in a brace-enclosed linkage specification get the linkage from matching declarations, if any, else from the linkage specifcation; while top-level declarators in direct linkage specifications get their linkage from that specification.)
Mike Miller: This is a pretty significant change from the current specification, which treats the two forms of language linkage similarly for most purposes. I don't understand why it's desirable to expand the differences.
It seems very unintuitive to me that you could have a top-level declaration in an extern "C" block that would not receive "C" linkage.
In the current standard, the statement in 7.5 dcl.link paragraph 4 that
the specified language linkage applies to the function types of all function declarators, function names, and variable names introduced by the declaration(s)
applies to both forms. I would thus expect that in
extern "C" void f(void(*)());
extern "C++" {
void f(void(*)());
}
extern "C++" f(void(*)());
both "C++" declarations would be well-formed, declaring an overloaded version of f that takes a pointer to a "C++" function as a parameter. I wouldn't expect that either declaration would be a redeclaration (valid or invalid) of the "C" version of f.
Bill Gibbons: The potential difficulty is the matching process and the handling of deliberate overloading based on language linkage. In the above examples, how are these two declarations matched:
extern "C" void f(void (*fp1)());
extern "C++" {
void f(void(*fp2)());
}
given that the linkage that is part of fp1 is "C" while the linkage (prior to the matching process) that is part of fp2 is "C++"?
The proposal is that the linkage which is part of the parameter type is not determined until after the match is attempted. This almost always correct because you can't overload "C" and "C++" functions; so if the function names match, it is likely that the declarations are supposed to be the same.
Mike Miller: This seems like more trouble than it's worth. This comparison of function types ignoring linkage specifications is, as far as I know, not found anywhere in the current standard. Why do we need to invent it?
Bill Gibbons: It is possible to construct pathological cases where this fails, e.g.
extern "C" typedef void (*PFC)(); // pointer to "C" linkage function
void f(PFC); // parameter is pointer to "C" function
void f(void (*)()); // matching declaration or overload based on
// difference in linkage type?
It is reasonable to require explicit typedefs in this case so that in the above example the second function declaration gets its parameter type function linkage from the first function declaration.
(In fact, I think you can't get into this situation without having already used typedefs to declare different language linkage for the top-level and parameter linkages.)
For example, if the intent is to overload based on linkage a typedef is needed:
extern "C" typedef void (*PFC)(); // pointer to "C" linkage function
void f(PFC); // parameter is pointer to "C" function
typedef void (*PFCPP)(); // pointer to "C++" linkage function
void f(PFCPP); // parameter is pointer to "C++" function
In this case the two function declarations refer to different functions.
Mike Miller: This seems pretty strange to me. I think it would be simpler to determine the type of the parameter based on the containing linkage specification (implicitly "C++") and require a typedef if the user wants to override the default behavior. For example:
extern "C" {
typedef void (*PFC)(); // pointer to "C" function
void f(void(*)()); // takes pointer to "C" function
}
void f(void(*)()); // new overload of "f", taking
// pointer to "C++" function
void f(PFC); // redeclare extern "C" version
Notes from 04/00 meeting:
The following changes were tentatively approved, but because they do not completely implement the proposal above the issue is being kept for the moment in "drafting" status.
Notes from 10/00 meeting:
After further discussion, the core language working group determined that the more extensive proposal described above is not needed and that the following changes are sufficient.
Proposed resolution (04/01):
Change the first sentence of 7.5 dcl.link paragraph 1 from
All function types, function names, and variable names have a language linkage.
to
All function types, function names with external linkage, and variable names with external linkage have a language linkage.
In a linkage-specification, the specified language linkage applies to the function types of all function declarators, function names, and variable names introduced by the declaration(s).
to
In a linkage-specification, the specified language linkage applies to the function types of all function declarators, function names with external linkage, and variable names with external linkage declared within the linkage-specification.
Add at the end of the final example on 7.5 dcl.link paragraph 4:
extern "C" {
static void f4(); // the name of the function f4 has
// internal linkage (not C language
// linkage) and the function's type
// has C language linkage
}
extern "C" void f5() {
extern void f4(); // Okay -- name linkage (internal)
// and function type linkage (C
// language linkage) gotten from
// previous declaration.
}
extern void f4(); // Okay -- name linkage (internal)
// and function type linkage (C
// language linkage) gotten from
// previous declaration.
void f6() {
extern void f4(); // Okay -- name linkage (internal)
// and function type linkage (C
// language linkage) gotten from
// previous declaration.
}
Change 7.5 dcl.link paragraph 7 from
Except for functions with internal linkage, a function first declared in a linkage-specification behaves as a function with external linkage. [Example:
extern "C" double f(); static double f(); // erroris ill-formed (7.1.1 dcl.stc). ] The form of linkage-specification that contains a braced-enclosed declaration-seq does not affect whether the contained declarations are definitions or not (3.1 basic.def); the form of linkage-specification directly containing a single declaration is treated as an extern specifier (7.1.1 dcl.stc) for the purpose of determining whether the contained declaration is a definition. [Example:
extern "C" int i; // declaration extern "C" { int i; // definition }—end example] A linkage-specification directly containing a single declaration shall not specify a storage class. [Example:
extern "C" static void f(); // error—end example]
to
A declaration directly contained in a linkage-specification is treated as if it contains the extern specifier (7.1.1 dcl.stc) for the purpose of determining the linkage of the declared name and whether it is a definition. Such a declaration shall not specify a storage class. [Example:extern "C" double f(); static double f(); // error extern "C" int i; // declaration extern "C" { int i; // definition } extern "C" static void g(); // error—end example]
[Moved to DR at October 2002 meeting. This was incorrectly marked as having DR status between 4/01 and 4/02. It was overlooked when issue 4 was moved to DR at the 4/01 meeting; this one should have been moved as well, because it's resolved by the changes there.]
Consider the following:
extern "C" void foo()
{
extern void bar();
bar();
}
Does "bar()" have "C" language linkage?
The ARM is explicit and says
A linkage-specification for a function also applies to functions and objects declared within it.The DIS says
In a linkage-specification, the specified language linkage applies to the function types of all function declarators, function names, and variable names introduced by the declaration(s).Is the body of a function definition part of the declaration?
From Mike Miller:
Yes: from 7 dcl.dcl paragraph 1,
From Dag Brück:
Consider the following where extern "C" has been moved to a separate declaration:
extern "C" void foo();
void foo() { extern void bar(); bar(); }
I think the ARM wording could possibly be interpreted such that bar() has
"C" linkage in my example, but not the DIS wording.
As a side note, I have always wanted to think that placing extern "C" on a function definition or a separate declaration would produce identical programs.
Proposed Resolution (04/01):
See the proposed resolution for Core issue 4, which covers this case.
The ODR should also be checked to see whether it addresses name and type linkage.
[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]
8.2 dcl.ambig.res paragraph 3 shows an example that includes <cstddef> with no using declarations or directives and refers to size_t without the std:: qualification.
Many references to size_t throughout the document omit the std:: namespace qualification.
This is a typical case. The use of std:: is inconsistent throughout the document.
In addition, the use of exception specifications should be examined for consistency.
(See also issue 282.)
Proposed resolution:
In 1.9 intro.execution paragraph 9, replace all two instances of "sig_atomic_t" by "std::sig_atomic_t".
In 3.1 basic.def paragraph 4, replace all three instances of "string" by "std::string" in the example and insert "#include <string>" at the beginning of the example code.
In 3.6.1 basic.start.main paragraph 4, replace
Calling the functionvoid exit(int);declared in <cstdlib>...
by
Calling the function std::exit(int) declared in <cstdlib>...
and also replace "exit" by "std::exit" in the last sentence of that paragraph.
In 3.6.1 basic.start.main first sentence of paragraph 5, replace "exit" by "std::exit".
In 3.6.2 basic.start.init paragraph 4, replace "terminate" by "std::terminate".
In 3.6.3 basic.start.term paragraph 1, replace "exit" by "std::exit" (see also issue 28).
In 3.6.3 basic.start.term paragraph 3, replace all three instances of "atexit" by "std::atexit" and both instances of "exit" by "std::exit" (see also issue 28).
In 3.6.3 basic.start.term paragraph 4, replace
Calling the functionvoid abort();declared in <cstdlib>...
by
Calling the function std::abort() declared in <cstdlib>...and "atexit" by "std::atexit" (see also issue 28).
In 3.7.3.1 basic.stc.dynamic.allocation paragraph 1 third sentence, replace "size_t" by "std::size_t".
In 3.7.3.1 basic.stc.dynamic.allocation paragraph 3, replace "new_handler" by "std::new_handler". Furthermore, replace "set_new_handler" by "std::set_new_handler" in the note.
In 3.7.3.1 basic.stc.dynamic.allocation paragraph 4, replace "type_info" by "std::type_info" in the note.
In 3.7.3.2 basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation paragraph 3, replace all four instances of "size_t" by "std::size_t".
In 3.8 basic.life paragraph 5, replace "malloc" by "std::malloc" in the example code and insert "#include <cstdlib>" at the beginning of the example code.
In 3.9 basic.types paragraph 2, replace "memcpy" by "std::memcpy" (the only instance in the footnote and both instances in the example) and replace "memmove" by "std::memmove" in the footnote (see also issue 43).
In 3.9 basic.types paragraph 3, replace "memcpy" by "std::memcpy", once in the normative text and once in the example (see also issue 43).
In 3.9.1 basic.fundamental paragraph 8 last sentence, replace "numeric_limits" by "std::numeric_limits".
In 5.2.7 expr.dynamic.cast paragraph 9 second sentence, replace "bad_cast" by "std::bad_cast".
In 5.2.8 expr.typeid paragraph 2, replace "type_info" by "std::type_info" and "bad_typeid" by "std::bad_typeid".
In 5.2.8 expr.typeid paragraph 3, replace "type_info" by "std::type_info".
In 5.2.8 expr.typeid paragraph 4, replace both instances of "type_info" by "std::type_info".
In 5.3.3 expr.sizeof paragraph 6, replace both instances of "size_t" by "std::size_t".
In 5.3.4 expr.new paragraph 11 last sentence, replace "size_t" by "std::size_t".
In 5.7 expr.add paragraph 6, replace both instances of "ptrdiff_t" by "std::ptrdiff_t".
In 5.7 expr.add paragraph 8, replace "ptrdiff_t" by "std::ptrdiff_t".
In 6.6 stmt.jump paragraph 2, replace "exit" by "std::exit" and "abort" by "std::abort" in the note.
In 8.2 dcl.ambig.res paragraph 3, replace "size_t" by "std::size_t" in the example.
In 8.4 dcl.fct.def paragraph 5, replace "printf" by "std::printf" in the note.
In 12.4 class.dtor paragraph 13, replace "size_t" by "std::size_t" in the example.
In 12.5 class.free paragraph 2, replace all four instances of "size_t" by "std::size_t" in the example.
In 12.5 class.free paragraph 6, replace both instances of "size_t" by "std::size_t" in the example.
In 12.5 class.free paragraph 7, replace all four instances of "size_t" by "std::size_t" in the two examples.
In 12.7 class.cdtor paragraph 4, replace "type_info" by "std::type_info".
In 13.6 over.built paragraph 13, replace all five instances of "ptrdiff_t" by "std::ptrdiff_t".
In 13.6 over.built paragraph 14, replace "ptrdiff_t" by "std::ptrdiff_t".
In 13.6 over.built paragraph 21, replace both instances of "ptrdiff_t" by "std::ptrdiff_t".
In 14.2 temp.names paragraph 4, replace both instances of "size_t" by "std::size_t" in the example. (The example is quoted in issue 96.)
In 14.3 temp.arg paragraph 1, replace "complex" by "std::complex", once in the example code and once in the comment.
In 14.7.3 temp.expl.spec paragraph 8, issue 24 has already corrected the example.
In 15.1 except.throw paragraph 6, replace "uncaught_exception" by "std::uncaught_exception".
In 15.1 except.throw paragraph 7, replace "terminate" by "std::terminate" and both instances of "unexpected" by "std::unexpected".
In 15.1 except.throw paragraph 8, replace "terminate" by "std::terminate".
In 15.2 except.ctor paragraph 3, replace "terminate" by "std::terminate".
In 15.3 except.handle paragraph 9, replace "terminate" by "std::terminate".
In 15.4 except.spec paragraph 8, replace "unexpected" by "std::unexpected".
In 15.4 except.spec paragraph 9, replace "unexpected" by "std::unexpected" and "terminate" by "std::terminate".
In 15.5 except.special paragraph 1, replace "terminate" by "std::terminate" and "unexpected" by "std::unexpected".
In the heading of 15.5.1 except.terminate, replace "terminate" by "std::terminate".
In 15.5.1 except.terminate paragraph 1, footnote in the first bullet, replace "terminate" by "std::terminate". In the same paragraph, fifth bullet, replace "atexit" by "std::atexit". In the same paragraph, last bullet, replace "unexpected_handler" by "std::unexpected_handler".
In 15.5.1 except.terminate paragraph 2, replace
In such cases,void terminate();is called...
by
In such cases, std::terminate() is called...
and replace all three instances of "terminate" by "std::terminate".
In the heading of 15.5.2 except.unexpected, replace "unexpected" by "std::unexpected".
In 15.5.2 except.unexpected paragraph 1, replace
...the functionvoid unexpected();is called...
by
...the function std::unexpected() is called....
In 15.5.2 except.unexpected paragraph 2, replace "unexpected" by "std::unexpected" and "terminate" by "std::terminate".
In 15.5.2 except.unexpected paragraph 3, replace "unexpected" by "std::unexpected".
In the heading of 15.5.3 except.uncaught, replace "uncaught_exception" by "std::uncaught_exception".
In 15.5.3 except.uncaught paragraph 1, replace
The functionbool uncaught_exception()returns true...
by
The function std::uncaught_exception() returns true....
In the last sentence of the same paragraph, replace "uncaught_exception" by "std::uncaught_exception".
[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]
Steve Clamage: Section 8.3.4 dcl.array paragraph 1 reads in part as follows:
Any type of the form "cv-qualifier-seq array of N T"
is adjusted to
"array of N cv-qualifier-seq T,"
and similarly for "array of unknown
bound of T." [Example:
typedef int A[5], AA[2][3];
typedef const A CA; // type is "array of 5 const int"
typedef const AA CAA; // type is "array of 2 array of 3 const int"
—end example]
[Note: an "array of N cv-qualifier-seq T"
has cv-qualified type; such
an array has internal linkage unless explicitly declared extern
(7.1.5.1
dcl.type.cv
)
and must be initialized as specified in
8.5
dcl.init
. ]
The Note appears to contradict the sentence that precedes it.
Mike Miller: I disagree; all it says is that whether the qualification on the element type is direct ("const int x[5]") or indirect ("const A CA"), the array itself is qualified in the same way the elements are.
Steve Clamage: In addition, section 3.9.3 basic.type.qualifier paragraph 2 says:
A compound type (3.9.2 basic.compound ) is not cv-qualified by the cv-qualifiers (if any) of the types from which it is compounded. Any cv-qualifiers applied to an array type affect the array element type, not the array type (8.3.4 dcl.array )."The Note appears to contradict that section as well.
Mike Miller: Yes, but consider the last two sentences of 3.9.3 basic.type.qualifier paragraph 5:
Cv-qualifiers applied to an array type attach to the underlying element type, so the notation "cv T," where T is an array type, refers to an array whose elements are so-qualified. Such array types can be said to be more (or less) cv-qualified than other types based on the cv-qualification of the underlying element types.I think this says essentially the same thing as 8.3.4 dcl.array paragraph 1 and its note: the qualification of an array is (bidirectionally) equivalent to the qualification of its members.
Mike Ball: I find this a very far reach. The text in 8.3.4 dcl.array is essentially that which is in the C standard (and is a change from early versions of C++). I don't see any justification at all for the bidirectional equivalence. It seems to me that the note is left over from the earlier version of the language.
Steve Clamage: Finally, the Note seems to say that the declaration
volatile char greet[6] = "Hello";
gives "greet" internal linkage, which makes no sense.
Have I missed something, or should that Note be entirely removed?
Mike Miller: At least the wording in the note should be repaired not to indicate that volatile-qualification gives an array internal linkage. Also, depending on how the discussion goes, either the wording in 3.9.3 basic.type.qualifier paragraph 2 or in paragraph 5 needs to be amended to be consistent regarding whether an array type is considered qualified by the qualification of its element type.
Steve Adamczyk pointed out that the current state of affairs resulted from the need to handle reference binding consistently. The wording is intended to define the question, "Is an array type cv-qualified?" as being equivalent to the question, "Is the element type of the array cv-qualified?"
Proposed resolution (10/00):
Replace the portion of the note in 8.3.4 dcl.array paragraph 1 reading
such an array has internal linkage unless explicitly declared extern (7.1.5.1 dcl.type.cv) and must be initialized as specified in 8.5 dcl.init.
with
see 3.9.3 basic.type.qualifier.
[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]
8.3.5 dcl.fct paragraph 3 says,
All declarations for a function with a given parameter list shall agree exactly both in the type of the value returned and in the number and type of parameters.It is not clear what this requirement means with respect to a pair of declarations like the following:
int f(const int);
int f(int x) { ... }
Do they violate this requirement? Is x const in the body of
the function declaration?
Tom Plum: I think the FDIS quotation means that the pair of decls are valid. But it doesn't clearly answer whether x is const inside the function definition. As to intent, I know the intent was that if the function definition wants to specify that x is const, the const must appear specifically in the defining decl, not just on some decl elsewhere. But I can't prove that intent from the drafted words.
Mike Miller: I think the intent was something along the following lines:
Two function declarations denote the same entity if the names are the same and the function signatures are the same. (Two function declarations with C language linkage denote the same entity if the names are the same.) All declarations of a given function shall agree exactly both in the type of the value returned and in the number and type of parameters; the presence or absence of the ellipsis is considered part of the signature.(See 3.5 basic.link paragraph 9. That paragraph talks about names in different scopes and says that function references are the same if the "types are identical for purposes of overloading," i.e., the signatures are the same. See also 7.5 dcl.link paragraph 6 regarding C language linkage, where only the name is required to be the same for declarations in different namespaces to denote the same function.)
According to this paragraph, the type of a parameter is determined by considering its decl-specifier-seq and declarator and then applying the array-to-pointer and function-to-pointer adjustments. The cv-qualifier and storage class adjustments are performed for the function type but not for the parameter types.
If my interpretation of the intent of the second sentence of the paragraph is correct, the two declarations in the example violate that restriction — the parameter types are not the same, even though the function types are. Since there's no dispensation mentioned for "no diagnostic required," an implementation presumably must issue a diagnostic in this case. (I think "no diagnostic required" should be stated if the declarations occur in different translation units — unless there's a blanket statement to that effect that I have forgotten?)
(I'd also note in passing that, if my interpretation is correct,
void f(int);
void f(register int) { }
is also an invalid pair of declarations.)
Proposed resolution (10/00):
In 1.3.10 defns.signature, change "the types of its parameters" to "its parameter-type-list (8.3.5 dcl.fct)".
In the third bullet of 3.5 basic.link paragraph 9 change "the function types are identical for the purposes of overloading" to "the parameter-type-lists of the functions (8.3.5 dcl.fct) are identical."
In the sub-bullets of the third bullet of 5.2.5 expr.ref paragraph 4, change all four occurrences of "function of (parameter type list)" to "function of parameter-type-list."
In 8.3.5 dcl.fct paragraph 3, change
All declarations for a function with a given parameter list shall agree exactly both in the type of the value returned and in the number and type of parameters; the presence or absence of the ellipsis is considered part of the function type.to
All declarations for a function shall agree exactly in both the return type and the parameter-type-list.
In 8.3.5 dcl.fct paragraph 3, change
The resulting list of transformed parameter types is the function's parameter type list.to
The resulting list of transformed parameter types and the presence or absence of the ellipsis is the function's parameter-type-list.
In 8.3.5 dcl.fct paragraph 4, change "the parameter type list" to "the parameter-type-list."
In the second bullet of 13.1 over.load paragraph 2, change all occurrences of "parameter types" to "parameter-type-list."
In 13.3 over.match paragraph 1, change "the types of the parameters" to "the parameter-type-list."
In the last sub-bullet of the third bullet of 13.3.1.2 over.match.oper paragraph 3, change "parameter type list" to "parameter-type-list."
Note, 7 Sep 2001:
Editorial changes while putting in issue 147 brought up the fact that injected-class-name is not a syntax term and therefore perhaps shouldn't be written with hyphens. The same can be said of parameter-type-list.
[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]
The interaction of default arguments and ellipsis is not clearly spelled out in the current wording of the Standard. 8.3.6 dcl.fct.default paragraph 4 says,
In a given function declaration, all parameters subsequent to a parameter with a default argument shall have default arguments supplied in this or previous declarations.
Strictly speaking, ellipsis isn't a parameter, but this could be clearer. Also, in 8.3.5 dcl.fct paragraph 2,
If the parameter-declaration-clause terminates with an ellipsis, the number of arguments shall be equal to or greater than the number of parameters specified.
This could be interpreted to refer to the number of arguments after the addition of default arguments to the argument list given in the call expression, but again it could be clearer.
Notes from 04/01 meeting:
The consensus opinion was that an ellipsis is not a parameter and that default arguments should be permitted preceding an ellipsis.
Proposed Resolution (4/02):
Change the following sentence in 8.3.5 dcl.fct paragraph 2 from
If the parameter-declaration-clause terminates with an ellipsis, the number of arguments shall be equal to or greater than the number of parameters specified.
to
If the parameter-declaration-clause terminates with an ellipsis, the number of arguments shall be equal to or greater than the number of parameters that do not have a default argument.
As noted in the defect, section 8.3.6 dcl.fct.default is correct but could be clearer.
In 8.3.6 dcl.fct.default, add the following as the first line of the example in paragraph 4.
void g(int = 0, ...); // okay, ellipsis is not a parameter so it can follow
// a parameter with a default argument
[Moved to DR at October 2002 meeting.]
This concerns the inconsistent treatment of cv qualifiers on reference types and function types. The problem originated with GCC bug report c++/2810. The bug report is available at http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view&pr=2810&database=gcc
8.3.2 dcl.ref describes references. Of interest is the statement (my emphasis)
Cv-qualified references are ill-formed except when the cv-qualifiers are introduced through the use of a typedef or of a template type argument, in which case the cv-qualifiers are ignored.
Though it is strange to ignore 'volatile' here, that is not the point of this defect report. 8.3.5 dcl.fct describes function types. Paragraph 4 states,
In fact, if at any time in the determination of a type a cv-qualified function type is formed, the program is ill-formed.
No allowance for typedefs or template type parameters is made here, which is inconsistent with the equivalent reference case.
The GCC bug report was template code which attempted to do,
template <typename T> void foo (T const &);
void baz ();
...
foo (baz);
in the instantiation of foo, T is `void ()' and an attempt is made to const qualify that, which is ill-formed. This is a surprise.
Suggested resolution:
Replace the quoted sentence from paragraph 4 in 8.3.5 dcl.fct with
cv-qualified functions are ill-formed, except when the cv-qualifiers are introduced through the use of a typedef or of a template type argument, in which case the cv-qualifiers are ignored.
Adjust the example following to reflect this.
Proposed resolution (10/01):
In 8.3.5 dcl.fct paragraph 4, replace
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,
i.e., it does not create a cv-qualified function type. In fact, if at
any time in the determination of a type a cv-qualified function type
is formed, the program is ill-formed. [Example:
typedef void F();
struct S {
const F f; // ill-formed
};
-- end example]
by
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. [Example:
typedef void F();
struct S {
const F f; // ok; equivalent to void f();
};
-- end example]
Strike the last bulleted item in 14.8.2 temp.deduct paragraph 2, which reads
Attempting to create a cv-qualified function type.
Nathan Sidwell comments (18 Dec 2001 ): The proposed resolution simply states attempts to add cv qualification on top of a function type are ignored. There is no mention of whether the function type was introduced via a typedef or template type parameter. This would appear to allow
void (const *fptr) ();but, that is not permitted by the grammar. This is inconsistent with the wording of adding cv qualifiers to a reference type, which does mention typedefs and template parameters, even though
int &const ref;is also not allowed by the grammar.
Is this difference intentional? It seems needlessly confusing.
Notes from 4/02 meeting:
Yes, the difference is intentional. There is no way to add cv-qualifiers other than those cases.
Notes from April 2003 meeting:
Nathan Sidwell pointed out that some libraries use the inability to add const to a type T as a way of testing that T is a function type. He will get back to us if he has a proposal for a change.
[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]
8.3.6 dcl.fct.default paragraph 4 says,
For non-template functions, default arguments can be added in later declarations of a function in the same scope. Declarations in different scopes have completely distinct sets of default arguments. That is, declarations in inner scopes do not acquire default arguments from declarations in outer scopes, and vice versa.It is unclear how this wording applies to friend function declarations. For example,
void f(int, int, int=0); // #1
class C {
friend void f(int, int=0, int); // #2
};
void f(int=0, int, int); // #3
Does the declaration at #2 acquire the default argument from #1, and
does the one at #3 acquire the default arguments from #2?
There are several related questions involved with this issue:
Mike Miller: 8.3.6 dcl.fct.default paragraph 4 is speaking about the lexical location of the declaration... The friend declaration occurs in a different declarative region from the declaration at #1, so I would read [this paragraph] as saying that it starts out with a clean slate of default arguments.
Bill Gibbons: Yes. It occurs in a different region, although it declares a name in the same region (i.e. a redeclaration). This is the same as with local externs and is intended to work the same way. We decided that local extern declarations cannot add (beyond the enclosing block) new default arguments, and the same should apply to friend declarations.
John Spicer: The question is whether [this paragraph] does (or should) mean declarations that appear in the same lexical scope or declarations that declare names in the same scope. In my opinion, it really needs to be the latter. It seems somewhat paradoxical to say that a friend declaration declares a function in namespace scope yet the declaration in the class still has its own attributes. To make that work I think you'd have to make friends more like block externs that really do introduce a name into the scope in which the declaration is contained.
Bill Gibbons: In the absence of a declaration visible in class scope to which they could be attached, default arguments on friend declarations do not make sense. [They should be] ill-formed, to prevent surprises.
John Spicer: It is important that the following case work correctly:
class X {
friend void f(X x, int i = 1){}
};
int main()
{
X x;
f(x);
}
In other words, a function first declared in a friend declaration must be permitted to have default arguments and those default arguments must be usable when the function is found by argument dependent lookup. The reason that this is important is that it is common practice to define functions in friend declarations in templates, and that definition is the only place where the default arguments can be specified.
John Spicer: We want to avoid instantiation side effects. IMO, the way to do this would be to prohibit a friend declaration from providing default arguments if a declaration of that function is already visible. Once a function has had a default specified in a friend declaration it should not be possible to add defaults in another declaration be it a friend or normal declaration.
Mike Miller: The position that seems most reasonable to me is to allow default arguments in friend declarations to be used in Koenig lookup, but to say that they are completely unrelated to default arguments in declarations in the surrounding scope; and to forbid use of a default argument in a call if more than one declaration in the overload set has such a default, as in the proposed resolution for issue 1.
Notes from 10/99 meeting:
Four possible outcomes were identified:
The core group eliminated the first and fourth options from consideration, but split fairly evenly between the remaining two.
A straw poll of the full committee yielded the following results (given as number favoring/could live with/"over my dead body"):
Additional discussion is recorded in the "Record of Discussion" for the meeting, J16/99-0036 = WG21 N1212. See also paper J16/00-0040 = WG21 N1263.
Proposed resolution (10/00):
In 8.3.6 dcl.fct.default, add following paragraph 4:
If a friend declaration specifies a default argument expression, that declaration must be a definition and shall be the only declaration of the function or function template in the translation unit.
[Moved to DR at 4/01 meeting.]
The description of copy-initialization in 8.5 dcl.init paragraph 14 says:
struct A {
A(A&);
};
struct B : A { };
struct C {
operator B&();
};
C c;
const A a = c; // allowed?
The temporary created with the conversion function is an lvalue of type B. If the temporary must have the cv-qualifiers of the destination type (i.e. const) then the copy-constructor for A cannot be called to create the object of type A from the lvalue of type const B. If the temporary has the cv-qualifiers of the result type of the conversion function, then the copy-constructor for A can be called to create the object of type A from the lvalue of type const B. This last outcome seems more appropriate.
Steve Adamczyk:
Because of late changes to this area, the relevant text is now the third sub-bullet of the fourth bullet of 8.5 dcl.init paragraph 14:
Otherwise (i.e., for the remaining copy-initialization cases), user-defined conversion sequences that can convert from the source type to the destination type or (when a conversion function is used) to a derived class thereof are enumerated... The function selected is called with the initializer expression as its argument; if the function is a constructor, the call initializes a temporary of the destination type. The result of the call (which is the temporary for the constructor case) is then used to direct-initialize, according to the rules above, the object that is the destination of the copy-initialization.
The issue still remains whether the wording should refer to "the cv-unqualified version of the destination type." I think it should.
Notes from 10/00 meeting:
The original example does not illustrate the remaining problem. The following example does:
struct C { };
C c;
struct A {
A(const A&);
A(const C&);
};
const volatile A a = c; // Okay
Proposed Resolution (04/01):
In 8.5 dcl.init, paragraph 14, bullet 4, sub-bullet 3, change
if the function is a constructor, the call initializes a temporary of the destination type.
to
if the function is a constructor, the call initializes a temporary of the cv-unqualified version of the destination type.
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.It should be made clear that this paragraph does not apply to static objects.
Proposed resolution (10/00): In 8.5 dcl.init paragraph 9, replace
Otherwise, if no initializer is specified for an object..."with
Otherwise, if no initializer is specified for a non-static object...
[Moved to DR at 4/02 meeting.]
Is the temporary created during copy-initialization of a class object treated as an lvalue or an rvalue? That is, is the following example well-formed or not?
struct B { };
struct A {
A(A&); // not const
A(const B&);
};
B b;
A a = b;
According to 8.5 dcl.init paragraph 14, the initialization of a is performed in two steps. First, a temporary of type A is created using A::A(const B&). Second, the resulting temporary is used to direct-initialize a using A::A(A&).
The second step requires binding a reference to non-const to the temporary resulting from the first step. However, 8.5.3 dcl.init.ref paragraph 5 requires that such a reference be bound only to lvalues.
It is not clear from 3.10 basic.lval whether the temporary created in the process of copy-initialization should be treated as an lvalue or an rvalue. If it is an lvalue, the example is well-formed, otherwise it is ill-formed.
Proposed resolution (04/01):
In 8.5 dcl.init paragraph 14, insert the following after "the call initializes a temporary of the destination type":
The temporary is an rvalue.
In 15.1 except.throw paragraph 3, replace
The temporary is used to initialize the variable...
with
The temporary is an lvalue and is used to initialize the variable...
(See also issue 84.)
[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]
The intent of 8.5 dcl.init paragraph 5 is that pointers that are zero-initialized will contain a null pointer value. Unfortunately, the wording used,
...set to the value of 0 (zero) converted to T
does not match the requirements for creating a null pointer value given in 4.10 conv.ptr paragraph 1:
A null pointer constant is an integral constant expression (5.19 expr.const) rvalue of integer type that evaluates to zero. A null pointer constant can be converted to a pointer type; the result is the null pointer value of that type...
The problem is that the "value of 0" in the description of zero-initialization is not specified to be an integral constant expression. Nonconstant expressions can also have the value 0, and converting a nonconst 0 to pointer type need not result in a null pointer value.
Proposed resolution (04/01):
In 8.5 dcl.init paragraph 5, change
...set to the value 0 (zero) converted to T;
to
...set to the value 0 (zero), taken as an integral constant expression, converted to T; [footnote: as specified in 4.10 conv.ptr, converting an integral constant expression whose value is 0 to a pointer type results in a null pointer value.]
[Moved to DR at October 2002 meeting.]
We've been looking at implementing value-initialization. At one point, some years back, I remember Bjarne saying that something like X() in an expression should produce an X object with the same value one would get if one created a static X object, i.e., the uninitialized members would be zero-initialized because the whole object is initialized at program startup, before the constructor is called.
The formulation for default-initialization that made it into TC1 (in 8.5 dcl.init) is written a little differently (see issue 178), but I had always assumed that it would still be a valid implementation to zero the whole object and then call the default constructor for the troublesome "non-POD but no user-written constructor" cases.
That almost works correctly, but I found a problem case:
struct A {
A();
~A();
};
struct B {
// B is a non-POD with no user-written constructor.
// It has a nontrivial generated constructor.
const int i;
A a;
};
int main () {
// Value-initializing a "B" doesn't call the default constructor for
// "B"; it value-initializes the members of B. Therefore it shouldn't
// cause an error on generation of the default constructor for the
// following:
new B();
}
If the definition of the B::B() constructor is generated, an error is issued because the const member "i" is not initialized. But the definition of value-initialization doesn't require calling the constructor, and therefore it doesn't require generating it, and therefore the error shouldn't be detected.
So this is a case where zero-initializing and then calling the constructor is not equivalent to value-initializing, because one case generates an error and the other doesn't.
This is sort of unfortunate, because one doesn't want to generate all the required initializations at the point where the "()" initialization occurs. One would like those initializations to be packaged in a function, and the default constructor is pretty much the function one wants.
I see several implementation choices:
Personally, I find option 1 the least objectionable.
Proposed resolution (10/01):
Add the indicated wording to the third-to-last sentence of 3.2 basic.def.odr pararaph 2:
A default constructor for a class is used by default initialization or value initialization as specified in 8.5 dcl.init.
Add a footnote to the indicated bullet in 8.5 dcl.init paragraph 5:
Add the indicated wording to the first sentence of 12.1 class.ctor paragraph 7:
An implicitly-declared default constructor for a class is implicitly defined when it is used (3.2 basic.def.odr) to create an object of its class type (1.8 intro.object).
[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]
There is a place in the Standard where overload resolution is implied but the way that a set of candidate functions is to be formed is omitted. See below.
According to the Standard, when initializing a reference to a non-volatile const class type (cv1 T1) with an rvalue expression (cv2 T2) where cv1 T1 is reference compatible with cv2 T2, the implementation shall proceed in one of the following ways (except when initializing the implicit object parameter of a copy constructor) 8.5.3 dcl.init.ref paragraph 5 bullet 2 sub-bullet 1:
While the first case is quite obvious, the second one is a bit unclear as it says "a constructor is called to copy the entire rvalue object into the temporary" without specifying how the temporary is created -- by direct-initialization or by copy-initialization? As stated in DR 152, this can make a difference when the copy constructor is declared as explicit. How should the set of candidate functions be formed? The most appropriate guess is that it shall proceed as per 13.3.1.3 over.match.ctor.
Another detail worth of note is that in the draft version of the Standard as of 2 December 1996 the second bullet read:
J. Stephen Adamczyk replied that the reason for changing "a copy constructor" to "a constructor" was to allow for member template converting constructors.
However, the new wording is somewhat in conflict with the footnote #93 that says that when initializing the implicit object parameter of a copy constructor an implementation must eventually choose the first alternative (binding without copying) to avoid infinite recursion. This seems to suggest that a copy constructor is always used for initializing the temporary of type "cv1 T2".
Furthermore, now that the set of candidate functions is not limited to only the copy constructors of T2, there might be some unpleasant consequences. Consider a rather contrived sample below:
int * pi = ::new(std::nothrow) int;
const std::auto_ptr<int> & ri = std::auto_ptr<int>(pi);
In this example the initialization of the temporary of type '<TT>const std::auto_ptr<int>' (to which 'ri' is meant to be subsequently bound) doesn't fail, as it would had the approach with copy constructors been retained, instead, a yet another temporary gets created as the well-known sequence:
std::auto_ptr<int>::operator std::auto_ptr_ref<int>()
std::auto_ptr<int>(std::auto_ptr_ref<int>)
is called (assuming, of course, that the set of candidate functions is formed as per 13.3.1.3 over.match.ctor). The second temporary is transient and gets destroyed at the end of the initialization. I doubt that this is the way that the committee wanted this kind of reference binding to go.
Besides, even if the approach restricting the set of candidates to copy constructors is restored, it is still not clear how the initialization of the temporary (to which the reference is intended to be bound) is to be performed -- using direct-initialization or copy-initialization.
Another place in the Standard that would benefit from a similar clarification is the creation of an exception object, which is delineated in 15.1 except.throw.
David Abrahams (February 2004): It appears, looking at core 291, that there may be a need to tighten up 8.5.3 dcl.init.ref/5.
Please see the attached example file, which demonstrates "move semantics" in C++98. Many compilers fail to compile test 10 because of the way 8.5.3/5 is interpreted. My problem with that interpretation is that test 20:
typedef X const XC;
sink2(XC(X()));
does compile. In other words, it *is* possible to construct the const
temporary from the rvalue. IMO, that is the proper test.
8.5.3/5 doesn't demand that a "copy constructor" is used to copy the temporary, only that a constructor is used "to copy the temporary". I hope that when the language is tightened up to specify direct (or copy initialization), that it also unambiguously allows the enclosed test to compile. Not only is it, I believe, within the scope of reasonable interpretation of the current standard, but it's an incredibly important piece of functionality for library writers and users alike.
#include <iostream>
#include <cassert>
template <class T, class X>
struct enable_if_same
{
};
template <class X>
struct enable_if_same<X, X>
{
typedef char type;
};
struct X
{
static int cnt; // count the number of Xs
X()
: id(++cnt)
, owner(true)
{
std::cout << "X() #" << id << std::endl;
}
// non-const lvalue - copy ctor
X(X& rhs)
: id(++cnt)
, owner(true)
{
std::cout << "copy #" << id << " <- #" << rhs.id << std::endl;
}
// const lvalue - T will be deduced as X const
template <class T>
X(T& rhs, typename enable_if_same<X const,T>::type = 0)
: id(++cnt)
, owner(true)
{
std::cout << "copy #" << id << " <- #" << rhs.id << " (const)" << std::endl;
}
~X()
{
std::cout << "destroy #" << id << (owner?"":" (EMPTY)") << std::endl;
}
private: // Move stuff
struct ref { ref(X*p) : p(p) {} X* p; };
public: // Move stuff
operator ref() {
return ref(this);
}
// non-const rvalue
X(ref rhs)
: id(++cnt)
, owner(rhs.p->owner)
{
std::cout << "MOVE #" << id << " <== #" << rhs.p->id << std::endl;
rhs.p->owner = false;
assert(owner);
}
private: // Data members
int id;
bool owner;
};
int X::cnt;
X source()
{
return X();
}
X const csource()
{
return X();
}
void sink(X)
{
std::cout << "in rvalue sink" << std::endl;
}
void sink2(X&)
{
std::cout << "in non-const lvalue sink2" << std::endl;
}
void sink2(X const&)
{
std::cout << "in const lvalue sink2" << std::endl;
}
void sink3(X&)
{
std::cout << "in non-const lvalue sink3" << std::endl;
}
template <class T>
void tsink(T)
{
std::cout << "in templated rvalue sink" << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
std::cout << " ------ test 1, direct init from rvalue ------- " << std::endl;
#ifdef __GNUC__ // GCC having trouble parsing the extra parens
X z2((0, X() ));
#else
X z2((X()));
#endif
std::cout << " ------ test 2, copy init from rvalue ------- " << std::endl;
X z4 = X();
std::cout << " ------ test 3, copy init from lvalue ------- " << std::endl;
X z5 = z4;
std::cout << " ------ test 4, direct init from lvalue ------- " << std::endl;
X z6(z4);
std::cout << " ------ test 5, construct const ------- " << std::endl;
X const z7;
std::cout << " ------ test 6, copy init from lvalue ------- " << std::endl;
X z8 = z7;
std::cout << " ------ test 7, direct init from lvalue ------- " << std::endl;
X z9(z7);
std::cout << " ------ test 8, pass rvalue by-value ------- " << std::endl;
sink(source());
std::cout << " ------ test 9, pass const rvalue by-value ------- " << std::endl;
sink(csource());
std::cout << " ------ test 10, pass rvalue by overloaded reference ------- " << std::endl;
// This one fails in Comeau's strict mode due to 8.5.3/5. GCC 3.3.1 passes it.
sink2(source());
std::cout << " ------ test 11, pass const rvalue by overloaded reference ------- " << std::endl;
sink2(csource());
#if 0 // These two correctly fail to compile, just as desired
std::cout << " ------ test 12, pass rvalue by non-const reference ------- " << std::endl;
sink3(source());
std::cout << " ------ test 13, pass const rvalue by non-const reference ------- " << std::endl;
sink3(csource());
#endif
std::cout << " ------ test 14, pass lvalue by-value ------- " << std::endl;
sink(z5);
std::cout << " ------ test 15, pass const lvalue by-value ------- " << std::endl;
sink(z7);
std::cout << " ------ test 16, pass lvalue by-reference ------- " << std::endl;
sink2(z4);
std::cout << " ------ test 17, pass const lvalue by const reference ------- " << std::endl;
sink2(z7);
std::cout << " ------ test 18, pass const lvalue by-reference ------- " << std::endl;
#if 0 // correctly fails to compile, just as desired
sink3(z7);
#endif
std::cout << " ------ test 19, pass rvalue by value to template param ------- " << std::endl;
tsink(source());
std::cout << " ------ test 20, direct initialize a const A with an A ------- " << std::endl;
typedef X const XC;
sink2(XC(X()));
}
Proposed Resolution:
(As proposed by N1610 section 5, with editing.)
Change paragraph 5, second bullet, first sub-bullet, second sub-sub-bullet as follows:
A temporary of type "cv1 T2" [sic] is created, and a constructor is called to copy the entire rvalue object into the temporaryvia copy-initialization from the entire rvalue object. The reference is bound to the temporary or to a sub-object within the temporary.
The text immediately following that is changed as follows:
The constructor that would be used to make the copy shall be callable whether or not the copy is actually done.The constructor and any conversion function that would be used in the initialization shall be callable whether or not the temporary is actually created.
Note, however, that the way the core working group is leaning on issue 391 (i.e., requiring direct binding) would make this change unnecessary.
Proposed resolution (April, 2005):
This issue is resolved by the resolution of issue 391.
[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]
After some email exchanges with Rani Sharoni, I've come up with the following proposal to allow reference binding to non-copyable rvalues in some cases. Rationale and some background appear afterwards.
---- proposal ----
Replace the section of 8.5.3 dcl.init.ref paragraph 5 that begins "If the initializer expression is an rvalue" with the following:
---- rationale ----
class nc {
nc (nc const &); // private, nowhere defined
public:
nc ();
nc const &by_ref () const { return *this; }
};
void f () {
void g (nc const &);
g (nc()); // Ill-formed
g (nc().by_ref()); // Ok - binds directly to rvalue
}
Forcing a direct binding in this way is possible wherever
the lifetime of the reference does not extend beyond the
containing full expression, since the reference returned
by the member function remains valid for this long.
---- background ----
The proposal is based on a recent discussion in this group. I originally wanted to leave the implementation free to copy the rvalue if there was a callable copy constructor, and only have to bind directly if none was callable. Unfortunately, a traditional compiler can't always tell whether a function is callable or not, e.g. if the copy constructor is declared but not defined. Rani pointed this out in an example, and suggested that maybe trivial copy constructors should still be allowed (by extension, maybe wherever the compiler can determine callability). I've gone with this version because it's simpler, and I also figure the "as if" rule gives the compiler some freedom with POD types anyway.
Notes from April 2003 meeting:
We agreed generally with the proposal. We were unsure about the need for the restriction regarding long-lived references. We will check with the proposer about that.
Jason Merrill points out that the test case in issue 86 may be a case where we do not want to require direct binding.
Further information from Rani Sharoni (April 2003):
I wasn't aware about the latest suggestion of Raoul as it appears in core issue 391. In our discussions we tried to formulate a different proposal.
The rational, as we understood, behind the implementation freedom to make an extra copying (8.5.3/5/2/12) of the rvalue is to allow return values in registers which on some architectures are not addressable. The example that Raoul and I presented shows that this implementation freedom is not always possible since we can "force" the rvalue to be addressable using additional member function (by_ref). The example only works for short lived rvalues and this is probably why Raoul narrow the suggestion.
I had different rational which was related to the implementation of conditional operator in VC. It seems that when conditional operator is involved VC does use an extra copying when the lifetime of the temporary is extended:
struct A { /* ctor with side effect */};
void f(A& x) {
A const& r = cond ? A(1) : x; // VC actually make an extra copy of
// the rvalue A(1)
}
I don't know what the consideration behind the VC implementation was (I saw open bug on this issue) but it convinced me to narrow the suggestion.
IMHO such limitation seems to be too strict because it might limit the optimizer since returning class rvalues in registers might be useful (although I'm not aware about any implementation that actually does it). My suggestion was to forbid the extra copying if the ctor is not viable (e.g. A::A(A&) ). In this case the implementation "freedom" doesn't exist (since the code might not compile) and only limits the programmer freedom (e.g. Move Constructors - http://www.cuj.com/experts/2102/alexandr.htm).
Core issue 291 is strongly related to the above issue and I personally prefer to see it resolved first. It seems that VC already supports the resolution I prefer.
Notes from October 2003 meeting:
We ended up feeling that this is just one of a number of cases of optimizations that are widely done by compilers and allowed but not required by the standard. We don't see any strong reason to require compilers to do this particular optimization.
Notes from the March 2004 meeting:
After discussing issue 450, we found ourselves reconsidering this, and we are now inclined to make a change to require the direct binding in all cases, with no restriction on long-lived references. Note that such a change would eliminate the need for a change for issue 291.
Proposed resolution (October, 2004):
Change 8.5.3 dcl.init.ref paragraph 5 bullet 2 sub-bullet 1 as follows:
If the initializer expression is an rvalue, with T2 a class type, and "cv1 T1" is reference-compatible with "cv2 T2", the reference is bound to the object represented by the rvalue (see 3.10 basic.lval) or to a sub-object within that object.in one of the following ways (the choice is implementation-defined):[Example:The constructor that would be used to make the copy shall be callable whether or not the copy is actually done.
- The reference is bound to the object represented by the rvalue (see 3.10 basic.lval) or to a sub-object within that object.
- A temporary of type "cv1 T2" [sic] is created, and a constructor is called to copy the entire rvalue object into the temporary. The reference is bound to the temporary or to a sub-object within the temporary.
struct A { }; struct B : public A { } b; extern B f(); const A& rca = f (); // Bound—end example]Either boundto the A sub-object of the B rvalue, // or the entire B object is copied and the reference // is bound to the A sub-object of the copy
[This resolution also resolves issue 291.]
[Voted into WP at October 2005 meeting.]
It's unclear whether the following is valid:
const int N = 10;
const int M = 20;
typedef int T;
void f(T const (&x)[N][M]){}
struct X {
int i[10][20];
};
X g();
int main()
{
f(g().i);
}
When you run this through 8.5.3 dcl.init.ref, you sort of end up falling off the end of the standard's description of reference binding. The standard says in the final bullet of paragraph 5 that an array temporary should be created and copy-initialized from the rvalue array, which seems implausible.
I'm not sure what the right answer is. I think I'd be happy with allowing the binding in this case. We would have to introduce a special case like the one for class rvalues.
Notes from the March 2004 meeting:
g++ and EDG give an error. Microsoft (8.0 beta) and Sun accept the example. Our preference is to allow the direct binding (no copy). See the similar issue with class rvalues in issue 391.
Proposed resolution (October, 2004):
Insert a new bullet in 8.5.3 dcl.init.ref paragraph 5 bullet 2 before sub-bullet 2 (which begins, “Otherwise, a temporary of type ‘cv1 T1’ is created...”):
If the initializer expression is an rvalue, with T2 an array type, and “cv1 T1” is reference-compatible with “cv2 T2”, the reference is bound to the object represented by the rvalue (see 3.10 basic.lval).
Change 3.10 basic.lval paragraph 2 as follows:
An lvalue refers to an object or function. Some rvalue expressions — those of (possibly cv-qualified) class or array typeor cv-qualified class type— also refer to objects.
[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]
With class name injection, when a base class name is used in a derived class, the name found is the injected name in the base class, not the name of the class in the scope containing the base class. Consequently, if the base class name is not accessible (e.g., because is is in a private base class), the base class name cannot be used unless a qualified name is used to name the class in the class or namespace of which it is a member.
Without class name injection the following example is valid. With class name injection, A is inaccessible in class C.
class A { };
class B: private A { };
class C: public B {
A* p; // error: A inaccessible
};
At the least, the standard should be more explicit that this is, in fact, ill-formed.
(See paper J16/99-0010 = WG21 N1187.)
Proposed resolution (04/01):
Add to the end of 11.1 class.access.spec paragraph 3:
[Note: In a derived class, the lookup of a base class name will find the injected-class-name instead of the name of the base class in the scope in which it was declared. The injected-class-name might be less accessible than the name of the base class in the scope in which it was declared.] [Example:
class A { }; class B : private A { }; class C : public B { A* p; // error: injected-class-name A is inaccessible ::A* q; // OK };—end example]
[Moved to DR at October 2002 meeting.]
I think that the definition of a POD class in the current version of the Standard is overly permissive in that it allows for POD classes for which a user-defined operator function operator& may be defined. Given that the idea behind POD classes was to achieve compatibility with C structs and unions, this makes 'Plain old' structs and unions behave not quite as one would expect them to.
In the C language, if x and y are variables of struct or union type S that has a member m, the following expression are allowed: &x, x.m, x = y. While the C++ standard guarantees that if x and y are objects of a POD class type S, the expressions x.m, x = y will have the same effect as they would in C, it is still possible for the expression &x to be interpreted differently, subject to the programmer supplying an appropriate version of a user-defined operator function operator& either as a member function or as a non-member function.
This may result in surprising effects. Consider:
// POD_bomb is a POD-struct. It has no non-static non-public data members,
// no virtual functions, no base classes, no constructors, no user-defined
// destructor, no user-defined copy assignment operator, no non-static data
// members of type pointer to member, reference, non-POD-struct, or
// non-POD-union.
struct POD_bomb {
int m_value1;
int m_value2;
int operator&()
{ return m_value1++; }
int operator&() const
{ return m_value1 + m_value2; }
};
3.9 basic.types paragraph 2 states:
For any complete POD object 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 [footnote:
By using, for example, the library functions (17.4.1.2
lib.headers) memcpy or memmove]. 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. [Example:
#define N sizeof(T)
char buf[N];
T obj; // obj initialized to its original value
memcpy(buf, &obj, N);
// between these two calls to memcpy,
// obj might be modified
memcpy(&obj, buf, N);
// at this point, each subobject of obj of scalar type
// holds its original value
—end example]
Now, supposing that the complete POD object type T in the example above is POD_bomb, and we cannot any more count on the assertions made in the comments to the example. Given a standard conforming implementation, the code will not even compile. And I see no legal way of copying the contents of an object of a complete object type POD_bomb into an array of char or unsigned char with memcpy or memmove without making use of the unary & operator. Except, of course, by means of an ugly construct like:
struct POD_without_ampersand {
POD_bomb a_bomb;
} obj;
#define N sizeof(POD_bomb)
char buf[N];
memcpy(buf, &obj, N);
memcpy(&obj, buf, N);
The fact that the definition of a POD class allows for POD classes for which a user-defined operator& is defined, may also present major obstacles to implementers of the offsetof macro from <cstddef>
18.1 lib.support.types paragraph 5 says:
The macro offsetof accepts a restricted set of type arguments in this International Standard. type shall be a POD structure or a POD union (clause 9 class). The result of applying the offsetof macro to a field that is a static data member or a function is undefined."
Consider a well-formed C++ program below:
#include <cstddef>
#include <iostream>
struct POD_bomb {
int m_value1;
int m_value2;
int operator&()
{ return m_value1++; }
int operator&() const
{ return m_value1 + m_value2; }
};
// POD_struct is a yet another example of a POD-struct.
struct POD_struct {
POD_bomb m_nonstatic_bomb1;
POD_bomb m_nonstatic_bomb2;
};
int main()
{
std::cout << "offset of m_nonstatic_bomb2: " << offsetof(POD_struct,
m_nonstatic_bomb2) << '\n';
return 0;
}
See Jens Maurer's paper 01-0038=N1324 for an analysis of this issue.
Notes from 10/01 meeting:
A consensus was forming around the idea of disallowing operator& in POD classes when it was noticed that it is permitted to declare global-scope operator& functions, which cause the same problems. After more discussion, it was decided that such functions should not be prohibited in POD classes, and implementors should simply be required to "get the right answer" in constructs such as offsetof and va_start that are conventionally implemented using macros that use the "&" operator. It was noted that one can cast the original operand to char & to de-type it, after which one can use the built-in "&" safely.
Proposed resolution:
[Footnote: Note that offsetof is required to work as specified even if unary operator& is overloaded for any of the types involved.]
[Footnote: Note that va_start is required to work as specified even if unary operator& is overloaded for the type of parmN.]
[Moved to DR at October 2002 meeting.]
Although 8.3 dcl.meaning requires that a declaration of a qualified-id refer to a member of the specified namespace or class and that the member not have been introduced by a using-declaration, it applies only to names declared in a declarator. It is not clear whether there is existing wording enforcing the same restriction for qualified-ids in class-specifiers and elaborated-type-specifiers or whether additional wording is required. Once such wording is found/created, the proposed resolution of issue 275 must be modified accordingly.
Notes from 10/01 meeting:
The sentiment was that this should be required on class definitions, but not on elaborated type specifiers in general (which are references, not declarations). We should also make sure we consider explicit instantiations, explicit specializations, and friend declarations.
Proposed resolution (10/01):
Add after the end of 9.1 class.name paragraph 3:
When a nested-name-specifier is specified in a class-head or in an elaborated-type-specifier, the resulting qualified name shall refer to a previously declared member of the class or namespace to which the nested-name-specifier 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.
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
The ARM used the term "class declaration" to refer to what would usually be termed the definition of the class. The standard now often uses "class definition", but there are some surviving uses of "class declaration" with the old meaning. They should be found and changed.
Proposed resolution (April 2003):
Replace in 3.1 basic.def paragraph 2
A declaration is a definition unless it declares a function without specifying the function's body (8.4 dcl.fct.def), it contains the extern specifier (7.1.1 dcl.stc) or a linkage-specification [Footnote: Appearing inside the braced-enclosed declaration-seq in a linkage-specification does not affect whether a declaration is a definition. --- end footnote] (7.5 dcl.link) and neither an initializer nor a function-body, it declares a static data member in a classdeclarationdefinition (9.4 class.static), it is a class name declaration (9.1 class.name), or it is a typedef declaration (7.1.3 dcl.typedef), a using-declaration (7.3.3 namespace.udecl), or a using-directive (7.3.4 namespace.udir).
Replace in 7.1.2 dcl.fct.spec paragraphs 5 and 6
The virtual specifier shall only be used in declarations of nonstatic class member functions that appear within a member-specification of a class
declarationdefinition; see 10.3 class.virtual.The explicit specifier shall be used only in declarations of constructors within a class
declarationdefinition; see 12.3.1 class.conv.ctor.
Replace in 7.1.3 dcl.typedef paragraph 4
A typedef-name that names a class is a class-name (9.1 class.name). If a typedef-name is used following the class-key in an elaborated-type-specifier (7.1.5.3 dcl.type.elab) or in the class-head of a classdeclarationdefinition (9 class), or is used as the identifier in the declarator for a constructor or destructor declaration (12.1 class.ctor, 12.4 class.dtor), the program is ill-formed.
Replace in 7.3.1.2 namespace.memdef paragraph 3
The name of the friend is not found by simple name lookup until a matching declaration is provided in that namespace scope (either before or after the classdeclarationdefinition granting friendship).
Replace in 8.3.2 dcl.ref paragraph 4
There shall be no references to references, no arrays of references, and no pointers to references. The declaration of a reference shall contain an initializer (8.5.3 dcl.init.ref) except when the declaration contains an explicit extern specifier (7.1.1 dcl.stc), is a class member (9.2 class.mem) declaration within a classdeclarationdefinition, or is the declaration of a parameter or a return type (8.3.5 dcl.fct); see 3.1 basic.def.
Replace in 8.5.3 dcl.init.ref paragraph 3
The initializer can be omitted for a reference only in a parameter declaration (8.3.5 dcl.fct), in the declaration of a function return type, in the declaration of a class member within its classdeclarationdefinition (9.2 class.mem), and where the extern specifier is explicitly used.
Replace in 9.1 class.name paragraph 2
A classdefinitiondeclaration introduces the class name into the scope where it isdefineddeclared and hides any class, object, function, or other declaration of that name in an enclosing scope (3.3 basic.scope). If a class name is declared in a scope where an object, function, or enumerator of the same name is also declared, then when both declarations are in scope, the class can be referred to only using an elaborated-type-specifier (3.4.4 basic.lookup.elab).
Replace in 9.4 class.static paragraph 4
Static members obey the usual class member access rules (clause 11 class.access). When used in the declaration of a class member, the static specifier shall only be used in the member declarations that appear within the member-specification of the classdeclarationdefinition.
Replace in 9.7 class.nest paragraph 1
A class can bedefineddeclared within another class. A classdefineddeclared within another is called a nested class. The name of a nested class is local to its enclosing class. The nested class is in the scope of its enclosing class. Except by using explicit pointers, references, and object names, declarations in a nested class can use only type names, static members, and enumerators from the enclosing class.
Replace in 9.8 class.local paragraph 1
A class can bedefineddeclared within a function definition; such a class is called a local class. The name of a local class is local to its enclosing scope. The local class is in the scope of the enclosing scope, and has the same access to names outside the function as does the enclosing function. Declarations in a local class can use only type names, static variables, extern variables and functions, and enumerators from the enclosing scope.
Replace in 10 class.derived paragraph 1
... The class-name in a base-specifier shall not be an incompletely defined class (clause 9 class); this class is called a direct base class for the class beingdeclareddefined. During the lookup for a base class name, non-type names are ignored (3.3.7 basic.scope.hiding). If the name found is not a class-name, the program is ill-formed. A class B is a base class of a class D if it is a direct base class of D or a direct base class of one of D's base classes. A class is an indirect base class of another if it is a base class but not a direct base class. A class is said to be (directly or indirectly) derived from its (direct or indirect) base classes. [Note: See clause 11 class.access for the meaning of access-specifier.] Unlessredefinedredeclared in the derived class, members of a base class are also considered to be members of the derived class. The base class members are said to be inherited by the derived class. Inherited members can be referred to in expressions in the same manner as other members of the derived class, unless their names are hidden or ambiguous (10.2 class.member.lookup). [Note: the scope resolution operator :: (5.1 expr.prim) can be used to refer to a direct or indirect base member explicitly. This allows access to a name that has beenredefinedredeclared in the derived class. A derived class can itself serve as a base class subject to access control; see 11.2 class.access.base. A pointer to a derived class can be implicitly converted to a pointer to an accessible unambiguous base class (4.10 conv.ptr). An lvalue of a derived class type can be bound to a reference to an accessible unambiguous base class (8.5.3 dcl.init.ref).]
Replace in 10.1 class.mi paragraph 5
For another example,for an object c of class type C, a single subobject of type V is shared by every base subobject of c thatclass V { /* ... */ }; class A : virtual public V { /* ... */ }; class B : virtual public V { /* ... */ }; class C : public A, public B { /* ... */ };is declared to havehas a virtual base class of type V.
Replace in the example in 10.2 class.member.lookup paragraph 6 (the whole paragraph was turned into a note by the resolution of core issue 39)
The namesdefineddeclared in V and the left hand instance of W are hidden by those in B, but the namesdefineddeclared in the right hand instance of W are not hidden at all.
Replace in 10.4 class.abstract paragraph 2
... A virtual function is specified pure by using a pure-specifier (9.2 class.mem) in the function declaration in the classdeclarationdefinition. ...
Replace in the footnote at the end of 11.2 class.access.base paragraph 1
[Footnote: As specified previously in clause 11 class.access, private members of a base class remain inaccessible even to derived classes unless friend declarations within the base classdeclarationdefinition are used to grant access explicitly.]
Replace in 11.3 class.access.dcl paragraph 1
The access of a member of a base class can be changed in the derived class by mentioning its qualified-id in the derived classdeclarationdefinition. Such mention is called an access declaration. ...
Replace in the example in 13.4 over.over paragraph 5
The initialization of pfe is ill-formed because no f() with type int(...) has beendefineddeclared, and not because of any ambiguity.
Replace in C.1.5 diff.dcl paragraph 1
Rationale: Storage class specifiers don't have any meaning when associated with a type. In C++, class members can bedefineddeclared with the static storage class specifier. Allowing storage class specifiers on type declarations could render the code confusing for users.
Replace in C.1.7 diff.class paragraph 3
In C++, a typedef name may not beDrafting notes:redefinedredeclared in a classdeclarationdefinition after being used inthe declarationthat definition
The resolution of core issue 45 (DR) deletes 11.8 class.access.nest paragraph 2.
The following occurrences of "class declaration" are not changed:
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
The standard (9 class par. 4) says that "A POD-struct is an aggregate class that has no non-static data members of type non-POD-struct, non-POD-union (or array of such types) or reference, and has no user-defined copy assignment operator and no user-defined destructor."
Note that it says 'user-defined', not 'user-declared'. Is it the intent that if e.g. a copy assignment operator is declared but not defined, this does not (per se) prevent the class to be a POD-struct?
Proposed resolution (April 2003):
Replace in 9 class paragraph 4
A POD-struct is an aggregate class that has no non-static data members of type non-POD-struct, non-POD-union (or array of such types) or reference, and has no user-defineddeclared copy assignment operator and no user-defineddeclared destructor. Similarly, a POD-union is an aggregate union that has no non-static data members of type non-POD-struct, non-POD-union (or array of such types) or reference, and has no user-defineddeclared copy assignment operator and no user-defineddeclared destructor.
Drafting note: The changes are shown relative to TC1, incorporating the changes from the resolution of core issue 148.
[Voted into WP at October 2004 meeting.]
We had a user complain that our compiler was allowing the following code:
struct B {
struct S;
};
struct D : B { };
struct D::S {
};
We took one look at the code and made the reasonable (I would claim) assumption that this was indeed a bug in our compiler. Especially as we had just fixed a very similar issue with the definition of static data members.
Imagine our surprise when code like this showed up in Boost and that every other compiler we tested accepts this code. So is this indeed legal (it seems like it must be) and if so is there any justification for this beyond 3.4.3.1 class.qual?
John Spicer: The equivalent case for a member function is covered by the declarator rules in 8.3 dcl.meaning paragraph 1. The committee has previously run into cases where a restriction should apply to both classes and non-classes, but fails to do so because there is no equivalent of 8.3 dcl.meaning paragraph 1 for classes.
Given that, by the letter of the standard, I would say that this case is allowed.
Notes from October 2003 meeting:
We feel this case should get an error.
Proposed Resolution (October 2003):
Note that the change here interacts with issue 432.
Add the following as a new paragraph immediately following 3.3.1 basic.scope.pdecl paragraph 2:
The point of declaration for a class first declared by a class-specifier is immediately after the identifier or template-id (if any) in its class-head (Clause 9 class). The point of declaration for an enumeration is immediately after the identifier (if any) in its enum-specifier (7.2 dcl.enum).
Change point 1 of 3.3.6 basic.scope.class paragraph 1 to read:
The potential scope of a name declared in a class consists not only of the declarative region following the name'sdeclaratorpoint of declaration, but also of all function bodies, default arguments, and constructor ctor-initializers in that class (including such things in nested classes).
[Note that the preceding change duplicates one of the changes in the proposed resolution of issue 432.]
Change 14.7.2 temp.explicit paragraph 2 to read:
If the explicit instantiation is for a member function, a member class or a static data member of a class template specialization, the name of the class template specialization in the qualified-id for the memberdeclaratorname shall be a template-id.
Add the following as paragraph 5 of Clause 9 class:
If a class-head contains a nested-name-specifier, the class-specifier shall refer to a class that was previously declared directly in the class or namespace to which the nested-name-specifier refers (i.e., neither inherited nor introduced by a using-declaration), and the class-specifier shall appear in a namespace enclosing the previous declaration.
Delete 9.1 class.name paragraph 4 (this was added by issue 284):
When a nested-name-specifier is specified in a class-head or in an elaborated-type-specifier, the resulting qualified name shall refer to a previously declared member of the class or namespace to which the nested-name-specifier 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.
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
Is it legal to use an incomplete type (3.9 basic.types paragraph 6) as a class member, if no object of such class is ever created ?
And as a class template member, even if the template is instantiated, but no object of the instantiated class is created?
The consensus seems to be NO, but no wording was found in the standard which explicitly disallows it.
The problem seems to be that most of the restrictions on incomplete types are on their use in objects, but class members are not objects.
A possible resolution, if this is considered a defect, is to add to 3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 4, (situations when T must be complete), the use of T as a member of a class or instantiated class template.
The thread on comp.std.c++ which brought up the issue was "Compiler differences: which is correct?", started 2001 11 30. <3c07c8fb$0$8507$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net>
Proposed Resolution (April 2002, revised April 2003):
Change the first bullet of the note in 3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 4 and add two new bullets following it, as follows:
Replace 9.2 class.mem paragraph 8 by:
Non-static (9.4 class.static) data members shall not have incomplete types. In particular, a class C shall not contain a non-static member of class C, but it can contain a pointer or reference to an object of class C.
See also 3.9 basic.types paragraph 6, which is relevant but not changed by the Proposed Resolution.
[Voted into WP at April 2005 meeting.]
I've encountered a C++ program in which a member function wants to declare that it may throw an object of its own class, e.g.:
class Foo {
private:
int val;
public:
Foo( int &initval ) { val = initval; };
void throwit() throw(Foo) { throw (*this); };
};
The compiler is complaining that Foo is an incomplete type, and can't be used in the exception specification.
My reading of the standard [basic.types] is inconclusive. Although it does state that the class declaration is considered complete when the closing brace is read, I believe it also intends that the member function declarations should not be semantically validated until the class has been completely declared.
If this isn't allowed, I don't know how else a member function could be declared to throw an object of its own class.
John Spicer: The type is considered complete within function bodies, but not in their declaration (see 9.2 class.mem paragraph 2).
Proposed Resolution:
Change 9.2 class.mem paragraph 2 as follows:
Within the class member-specification, the class is regarded as complete within function bodies, default arguments, exception-specifications, and constructor ctor-initializers (including such things in nested classes).
Rationale: Taken with 8.3.5 dcl.fct paragraph 6, the exception-specification is the only part of a function declaration/definition in which the class name cannot be used because of its putative incompleteness. There is no justification for singling out exception specifications this way; both in the function body and in a catch clause, the class type will be complete, so there is no harm in allowing the class name to be used in the exception-specification.
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
The following test program is claimed to be a negative C++ test case for "Unnamed classes shall not contain static data members", c.f. ISO/IEC 14882 section 9.4.2 class.static.data paragraph 5.
struct B {
typedef struct {
static int i; // Is this legal C++ ?
} A;
};
int B::A::i = 47; // Is this legal C++ ?
We are not quite sure about what an "unnamed class" is. There is no exact definition in ISO/IEC 14882; the closest we can come to a hint is the wording of section 7.1.3 dcl.typedef paragraph 5, where it seems to be understood that a class-specifier with no identifier between "class" and "{" is unnamed. The identifier provided after "}" ( "A" in the test case above) is there for "linkage purposes" only.
To us, class B::A in the test program above seems "named" enough, and there is certainly a mechanism to provide the definition for B::A::i (in contrast to the note in section 9.4.2 class.static.data paragraph 5).
Our position is therefore that the above test program is indeed legal C++. Can you confirm or reject this claim?
Herb Sutter replied to the submitter as follows: Here are my notes based on a grep for "unnamed class" in the standard:
a named class (clause class), or an unnamed class defined in a typedef declaration in which the class has the typedef name for linkage purposes (7.1.3 dcl.typedef);Likewise in your example, you have an unnamed class defined in a typedef declaration.
So yes, an unnamed class is one where there is no identifier (class name) between the class-key and the {. This is also in harmony with the production for class-name in 9 class paragraph 1:
Notes from the October 2003 meeting:
We agree that the example is not valid; this is an unnamed class. We will add wording to define an unnamed class. The note in 9.4.2 class.static.data paragraph 5 should be corrected or deleted.
Proposed Resolution (October 2003):
At the end of clause 9 class, paragraph 1, add the following:
A class-specifier where the class-head omits the optional identifier defines an unnamed class.
Delete the following from 9.4.2 class.static.data paragraph 5:
[ Note: this is because there is no mechanism to provide the definitions for such static data members. ]
[Voted into WP at October 2004 meeting.]
It looks like the example on 9.6 class.bit paragraph 4 has both the enum and function contributing the identifier "f" for the same scope.
enum BOOL { f=0, t=1 };
struct A {
BOOL b:1;
};
A a;
void f() {
a.b = t;
if (a.b == t) // shall yield true
{ /* ... */ }
}
Proposed resolution:
Change the example at the end of 9.6 class.bit/4 from:
enum BOOL { f=0, t=1 };
struct A {
BOOL b:1;
};
A a;
void f() {
a.b = t;
if (a.b == t) // shall yield true
{ /* ... */ }
}
To:
enum BOOL { FALSE=0, TRUE=1 };
struct A {
BOOL b:1;
};
A a;
void f() {
a.b = TRUE;
if (a.b == TRUE) // shall yield true
{ /* ... */ }
}
[Voted into WP at April 2003 meeting.]
9.8 class.local paragraph 1 says,
Declarations in a local class can use only type names, static variables, extern variables and functions, and enumerators from the enclosing scope.The definition of when an object or function is "used" is found in 3.2 basic.def.odr paragraph 2 and essentially says that the operands of sizeof and non-polymorphic typeid operators are not used. (The resolution for issue 48 will add contexts in which integral constant expressions are required to the list of non-uses.)
This definition of "use" would presumably allow code like
void foo() {
int i;
struct S {
int a[sizeof(i)];
};
};
which is required for C compatibility.
However, the restrictions on nested classes in 9.7 class.nest paragraph 1 are very similar to those for local classes, and the example there explicitly states that a reference in a sizeof expression is a forbidden use (abbreviated for exposition):
class enclose {
public:
int x;
class inner {
void f(int i)
{
int a = sizeof(x); // error: refers to enclose::x
}
};
};
[As a personal note, I have seen real-world code that was exactly like this; it was hard to persuade the author that the required writearound, sizeof(((enclose*) 0)->x), was an improvement over sizeof(x). —wmm]
Similarly, 9.2 class.mem paragraph 9 would appear to prohibit examples like the following:
struct B {
char x[10];
};
struct D: B {
char y[sizeof(x)];
};
Suggested resolution: Add cross-references to 3.2 basic.def.odr following the word "use" in both 9.7 class.nest and 9.8 class.local , and change the example in 9.7 class.nest to indicate that a reference in a sizeof expression is permitted. In 9.2 class.mem paragraph 9, "referred to" should be changed to "used" with a cross_reference to 3.2 basic.def.odr.
Notes from 10/01 meeting:
It was noted that the suggested resolution did not make the sizeof() example in 9.7 class.nest valid. Although the reference to the argument of sizeof() is not regarded as a use, the right syntax must be used nonetheless to reference a non-static member from the enclosing class. The use of the member name by itself is not valid. The consensus within the core working group was that nothing should be done about this case. It was later discovered that 9.4 class.static paragraph 3 states that
The definition of a static member shall not use directly the names of the nonstatic members of its class or of a base class of its class (including as operands of the sizeof operator). The definition of a static member may only refer to these members to form pointer to members (5.3.1 expr.unary.op) or with the class member access syntax (5.2.5 expr.ref).
This seems to reinforce the decision of the working group.
The use of "use" should still be cross-referenced. The statements in 9.7 class.nest and 9.8 class.local should also be rewritten to state the requirement positively rather than negatively as the list of "can't"s is already missing some cases such as template parameters.
Notes from the 4/02 meeting:
We backed away from "use" in the technical sense, because the requirements on the form of reference are the same whether or not the reference occurs inside a sizeof.
Proposed Resolution (revised October 2002):
In 9.2 class.mem paragraph 9, replace
Except when used to form a pointer to member (5.3.1 expr.unary.op), when used in the body of a nonstatic member function of its class or of a class derived from its class (9.3.1 class.mfct.nonstatic), or when used in a mem-initializer for a constructor for its class or for a class derived from its class (12.6.2 class.base.init), a nonstatic data or function member of a class shall only be referred to with the class member access syntax (5.2.5 expr.ref).
with the following paragraph
Each occurrence in an expression of the name of a nonstatic data member or nonstatic member function of a class shall be expressed as a class member access (5.2.5 expr.ref), except when it appears in the formation of a pointer to member (5.3.1 expr.unary.op), when it appears in the body of a nonstatic member function of its class or of a class derived from its class (9.3.1 class.mfct.nonstatic), or when it appears in a mem-initializer for a constructor for its class or for a class derived from its class (12.6.2 class.base.init).
In 9.7 class.nest paragraph 1, replace the last sentence,
Except by using explicit pointers, references, and object names, declarations in a nested class can use only type names, static members, and enumerators from the enclosing class.
with the following
[Note: In accordance with 9.2 class.mem, except by using explicit pointers, references, and object names, declarations in a nested class shall not use nonstatic data members or nonstatic member functions from the enclosing class. This restriction applies in all constructs including the operands of the sizeof operator.]
In the example following 9.7 class.nest paragraph 1, change the comment on the first statement of function f to emphasize that sizeof(x) is an error. The example reads in full:
int x;
int y;
class enclose {
public:
int x;
static int s;
class inner {
void f(int i)
{
int a = sizeof(x); // error: direct use of enclose::x even in sizeof
x = i; // error: assign to enclose::x
s = i; // OK: assign to enclose::s
::x = i; // OK: assign to global x
y = i; // OK: assign to global y
}
void g(enclose* p, int i)
{
p->x = i; // OK: assign to enclose::x
}
};
};
inner* p = 0; // error: inner not in scope
[Voted into WP at April 2005 meeting.]
The ambiguity text in 10.2 class.member.lookup may not say what we intended. It makes the following example ill-formed:
struct A {
int x(int);
};
struct B: A {
using A::x;
float x(float);
};
int f(B* b) {
b->x(3); // ambiguous
}
This is a name lookup ambiguity because of 10.2
class.member.lookup
paragraph 2:
... Each of these declarations that was introduced by a using-declaration is considered to be from each sub-object of C that is of the type containing the declaration designated by the using-declaration. If the resulting set of declarations are not all from sub-objects of the same type, or the set has a nonstatic member and includes members from distinct sub-objects, there is an ambiguity and the program is ill-formed.This contradicts the text and example in paragraph 12 of 7.3.3 namespace.udecl .
Proposed Resolution (10/00):
Replace the two cited sentences from 10.2 class.member.lookup paragraph 2 with the following:
The resulting set of declarations shall all be from sub-objects of the same type, or there shall be a set of declarations from sub-objects of a single type that contains using-declarations for the declarations found in all other sub-object types. Furthermore, for nonstatic members, the resulting set of declarations shall all be from a single sub-object, or there shall be a set of declarations from a single sub-object that contains using-declarations for the declarations found in all other sub-objects. Otherwise, there is an ambiguity and the program is ill-formed.
Replace the examples in 10.2 class.member.lookup paragraph 3 with the following:
struct A {
int x(int);
static int y(int);
};
struct V {
int z(int);
};
struct B: A, virtual V {
using A::x;
float x(float);
using A::y;
static float y(float);
using V::z;
float z(float);
};
struct C: B, A, virtual V {
};
void f(C* c) {
c->x(3); // ambiguous -- more than one sub-object A
c->y(3); // not ambiguous
c->z(3); // not ambiguous
}
Notes from 04/01 meeting:
The following example should be accepted but is rejected by the wording above:
struct A { static void f(); };
struct B1: virtual A {
using A::f;
};
struct B2: virtual A {
using A::f;
};
struct C: B1, B2 { };
void g() {
C::f(); // OK, calls A::f()
}
Notes from 10/01 meeting (Jason Merrill):
The example in the issues list:
struct A {
int x(int);
};
struct B: A {
using A::x;
float x(float);
};
int f(B* b) {
b->x(3); // ambiguous
}
Is broken under the existing wording:
... Each of these declarations that was introduced by a using-declaration is considered to be from each sub-object of C that is of the type containing the declaration designated by the using-declaration. If the resulting set of declarations are not all from sub-objects of the same type, or the set has a nonstatic member and includes members from distinct sub-objects, there is an ambiguity and the program is ill-formed.Since the two x's are considered to be "from" different objects, looking up x produces a set including declarations "from" different objects, and the program is ill-formed. Clearly this is wrong. The problem with the existing wording is that it fails to consider lookup context.
The first proposed solution:
The resulting set of declarations shall all be from sub-objects of the same type, or there shall be a set of declarations from sub-objects of a single type that contains using-declarations for the declarations found in all other sub-object types. Furthermore, for nonstatic members, the resulting set of declarations shall all be from a single sub-object, or there shall be a set of declarations from a single sub-object that contains using-declarations for the declarations found in all other sub-objects. Otherwise, there is an ambiguity and the program is ill-formed.breaks this testcase:
struct A { static void f(); };
struct B1: virtual A {
using A::f;
};
struct B2: virtual A {
using A::f;
};
struct C: B1, B2 { };
void g() {
C::f(); // OK, calls A::f()
}
because it considers the lookup context, but not the definition context;
under this definition of "from", the two declarations found are the
using-declarations, which are "from" B1 and B2.
The solution is to separate the notions of lookup and definition context. I have taken an algorithmic approach to describing the strategy.
Incidentally, the earlier proposal allows one base to have a superset of the declarations in another base; that was an extension, and my proposal does not do that. One algorithmic benefit of this limitation is to simplify the case of a virtual base being hidden along one arm and not another ("domination"); if we allowed supersets, we would need to remember which subobjects had which declarations, while under the following resolution we need only keep two lists, of subobjects and declarations.
Proposed resolution (October 2002):
Replace 10.2 class.member.lookup paragraph 2 with:
The following steps define the result of name lookup for a member name f in a class scope C.
The lookup set for f in C, called S(f,C), consists of two component sets: the declaration set, a set of members named f; and the subobject set, a set of subobjects where declarations of these members (possibly including using-declarations) were found. In the declaration set, using-declarations are replaced by the members they designate, and type declarations (including injected-class-names) are replaced by the types they designate. S(f,C) is calculated as follows.
If C contains a declaration of the name f, the declaration set contains every declaration of f in C (excluding bases), the subobject set contains C itself, and calculation is complete.
Otherwise, S(f,C) is initially empty. If C has base classes, calculate the lookup set for f in each direct base class subjobject Bi, and merge each such lookup set S(f,Bi) in turn into S(f,C).
The following steps define the result of merging lookup set S(f,Bi) into the intermediate S(f,C):
- If each of the subobject members of S(f,Bi) is a base class subobject of at least one of the subobject members of S(f,C), S(f,C) is unchanged and the merge is complete. Conversely, if each of the subobject members of S(f,C) is a base class subobject of at least one of the subobject members of S(f,Bi), the new S(f,C) is a copy of S(f,Bi).
- Otherwise, if the declaration sets of S(f,Bi) and S(f,C) differ, the merge is ambiguous: the new S(f,C) is a lookup set with an invalid declaration set and the union of the subobject sets. In subsequent merges, an invalid declaration set is considered different from any other.
- Otherwise, consider each declaration d in the set, where d is a member of class A. If d is a nonstatic member, compare the A base class subobjects of the subobject members of S(f,Bi) and S(f,C). If they do not match, the merge is ambiguous, as in the previous step. [Note: It is not necessary to remember which A subobject each member comes from, since using-declarations don't disambiguate. ]
- Otherwise, the new S(f,C) is a lookup set with the shared set of declarations and the union of the subobject sets.
The result of name lookup for f in C is the declaration set of S(f,C). If it is an invalid set, the program is ill-formed.
[Example:
struct A { int x; }; // S(x,A) = {{ A::x }, { A }} struct B { float x; }; // S(x,B) = {{ B::x }, { B }} struct C: public A, public B { }; // S(x,C) = { invalid, { A in C, B in C }} struct D: public virtual C { }; // S(x,D) = S(x,C) struct E: public virtual C { char x; }; // S(x,E) = {{ E::x }, { E }} struct F: public D, public E { }; // S(x,F) = S(x,E) int main() { F f; f.x = 0; // OK, lookup finds { E::x } }S(x,F) is unambiguous because the A and B base subobjects of D are also base subobjects of E, so S(x,D) is discarded in the first merge step. --end example]
Turn 10.2 class.member.lookup paragraphs 5 and 6 into notes.
Notes from October 2003 meeting:
Mike Miller raised some new issues in N1543, and we adjusted the proposed resolution as indicated in that paper.
Further information from Mike Miller (January 2004):
Unfortunately, I've become aware of a minor glitch in the proposed resolution for issue 39 in N1543, so I'd like to suggest a change that we can discuss in Sydney.
A brief review and background of the problem: the major change we agreed on in Kona was to remove detection of multiple-subobject ambiguity from class lookup (10.2 class.member.lookup) and instead handle it as part of the class member access expression. It was pointed out in Kona that 11.2 class.access.base/5 has this effect:
If a class member access operator, including an implicit "this->," is used to access a nonstatic data member or nonstatic member function, the reference is ill-formed if the left operand (considered as a pointer in the "." operator case) cannot be implicitly converted to a pointer to the naming class of the right operand.
After the meeting, however, I realized that this requirement is not sufficient to handle all the cases. Consider, for instance,
struct B {
int i;
};
struct I1: B { };
struct I2: B { };
struct D: I1, I2 {
void f() {
i = 0; // not ill-formed per 11.2p5
}
};
Here, both the object expression ("this") and the naming class are "D", so the reference to "i" satisfies the requirement in 11.2 class.access.base/5, even though it involves a multiple-subobject ambiguity.
In order to address this problem, I proposed in N1543 to add a paragraph following 5.2.5 expr.ref/4:
If E2 is a non-static data member or a non-static member function, the program is ill-formed if the class of E1 cannot be unambiguously converted (10.2) to the class of which E2 is directly a member.
That's not quite right. It does diagnose the case above as written; however, it breaks the case where qualification is used to circumvent the ambiguity:
struct D2: I1, I2 {
void f() {
I2::i = 0; // ill-formed per proposal
}
};
In my proposed wording, the class of "this" can't be converted to "B" (the qualifier is ignored), so the access is ill-formed. Oops.
I think the following is a correct formulation, so the proposed resolution we discuss in Sydney should contain the following paragraph instead of the one in N1543:
If E2 is a nonstatic data member or a non-static member function, the program is ill-formed if the naming class (11.2) of E2 cannot be unambiguously converted (10.2) to the class of which E2 is directly a member.
This reformulation also has the advantage of pointing readers to 11.2 class.access.base, where the the convertibility requirement from the class of E1 to the naming class is located and which might otherwise be overlooked.
Notes from the March 2004 meeting:
We discussed this further and agreed with these latest recommendations. Mike Miller has produced a paper N1626 that gives just the final collected set of changes.
(This resolution also resolves isssue 306.)
[Voted into WP at April 2005 meeting.]
Is the following well-formed?
struct A {
struct B { };
};
struct C : public A, public A::B {
B *p;
};
The lookup of B finds both the struct B in A
and the injected B from the A::B base class.
Are they the same thing? Does the standard say so?
What if a struct is found along one path and a typedef to that struct is found along another path? That should probably be valid, but does the standard say so?
This is resolved by issue 39
February 2004: Moved back to "Review" status because issue 39 was moved back to "Review".
[Voted into WP at March 2004 meeting.]
In clause 10.4 class.abstract paragraph 2, it reads:
A pure virtual function need be defined only if explicitly called with the qualified-id syntax (5.1 expr.prim).
This is IMHO incomplete. A dtor is a function (well, a "special member function", but this also makes it a function, right?) but it is called implicitly and thus without a qualified-id syntax. Another alternative is that the pure virtual function is called directly or indirectly from the ctor. Thus the above sentence which specifies when a pure virtual function need be defined ("...only if...") needs to be extended:
A pure virtual function need be defined only if explicitly called with the qualified-id syntax (5.1 expr.prim) or if implicitly called (12.4 class.dtor or 12.7 class.cdtor).
Proposed resolution:
Change 10.4 class.abstract paragraph 2 from
A pure virtual function need be defined only if explicitly called with the qualified-id syntax (5.1 expr.prim).
to
A pure virtual function need be defined only ifexplicitlycalled with, or as if with (12.4 class.dtor), the qualified-id syntax (5.1 expr.prim).
Note: 12.4 class.dtor paragraph 6 defines the "as if" cited.
[Moved to DR at 4/01 meeting.]
Consider the following example:
class A {
class A1{};
static void func(A1, int);
static void func(float, int);
static const int garbconst = 3;
public:
template < class T, int i, void (*f)(T, int) > class int_temp {};
template<> class int_temp<A1, 5, func> { void func1() };
friend int_temp<A1, 5, func>::func1();
int_temp<A1, 5, func>* func2();
};
A::int_temp<A::A1, A::garbconst + 2, &A::func>* A::func2() {...}
ISSUE 1:
In 11 class.access paragraph 5 we have:
A::int_temp
A::A1
A::garbconst (part of an expression)
A::func (after overloading is done)
I suspect that member templates were not really considered when this was
written, and that it might have been written rather differently if they
had been. Note that access to the template arguments is only legal because
the class has been declared a friend, which is probably not what most programmers
would expect.
Rationale:
Not a defect. This behavior is as intended.
ISSUE 2:
Now consider void A::int_temp<A::A1, A::garbconst + 2, &A::func>::func1() {...} By my reading of 11.8 class.access.nest , the references to A::A1, A::garbconst and A::func are now illegal, and there is no way to define this function outside of the class. Is there any need to do anything about either of these Issues?
Proposed resolution (04/01):
The resolution for this issue is contained in the resolution for issue 45.
[Moved to DR at 4/01 meeting.]
11.2 class.access.base paragraph 4 says:
A base class is said to be accessible if an invented public member of the base class is accessible. If a base class is accessible, one can implicitly convert a pointer to a derived class to a pointer to that base class.Given the above, is the following well-formed?
class D;
class B
{
protected:
int b1;
friend void foo( D* pd );
};
class D : protected B { };
void foo( D* pd )
{
if ( pd->b1 > 0 ); // Is 'b1' accessible?
}
Can you access the protected member b1 of B in foo?
Can you convert a D* to a B* in foo?
1st interpretation:
A public member of B is accessible within foo (since foo is a friend), therefore foo can refer to b1 and convert a D* to a B*.
2nd interpretation:
B is a protected base class of D, and a public member of B is a protected member of D and can only be accessed within members of D and friends of D. Therefore foo cannot refer to b1 and cannot convert a D* to a B*.
(See J16/99-0042 = WG21 N1218.)
Proposed Resolution (04/01):
A base class B of N is accessible at R, if
- an invented public member of B would be a public member of N, or
- R occurs in a member or friend of class N, and an invented public member of B would be a private or protected member of N, or
- R occurs in a member or friend of a class P derived from N, and an invented public member of B would be a private or protected member of P, or
- there exists a class S such that B is a base class of S accessible at R and S is a base class of N accessible at R. [Example:
class B { public: int m; }; class S: private B { friend class N; }; class N: private S { void f() { B* p = this; // OK because class S satisfies the // fourth condition above: B is a base // class of N accessible in f() because // B is an accessible base class of S // and S is an accessible base class of N. } };—end example]
A base class is said to be accessible if an invented public member of the base class is accessible.
A member m is accessible at the point R when named in class N if
- m as a member of N is public, or
- m as a member of N is private, and R occurs in a member or friend of class N, or
- m as a member of N is protected, and R occurs in a member or friend of class N, or in a member or friend of a class P derived from N, where m as a member of P is private or protected, or
- there exists a base class B of N that is accessible at R, and m is accessible at R when named in class B. [Example:...
The resolution for issue 207 modifies this wording slightly.
[Moved to DR at 4/01 meeting.]
The text in 11.2 class.access.base paragraph 4 does not seem to handle the following cases:
class D;
class B {
private:
int i;
friend class D;
};
class C : private B { };
class D : private C {
void f() {
B::i; //1: well-formed?
i; //2: well-formed?
}
};
The member i is not a member of D and cannot be
accessed in the
scope of D. What is the naming class of the member
i on line //1
and line //2?
Proposed Resolution (04/01): The resolution for this issue is contained in the resolution for issue 9..
[Moved to DR at 10/01 meeting.]
Consider the following example:
class A {
protected:
static void f() {};
};
class B : A {
public:
using A::f;
void g() {
A::f();
}
};
The standard says in 11.2 class.access.base paragraph 4 that the call to A::f is ill-formed:
A member m is accessible when named in class N if
- m as a member of N is public, or
- m as a member of N is private, and the reference occurs in a member or friend of class N, or
- m as a member of N is protected, and the reference occurs in a member or friend of class N, or in a member or friend of a class P derived from N, where m as a member of P is private or protected, or
- there exists a base class B of N that is accessible at the point of reference, and m is accessible when named in class B.
Here, m is A::f and N is A.
It seems clear to me that the third bullet should say "public, private or protected".
Steve Adamczyk:The words were written before using-declarations existed, and therefore didn't anticipate this case.
Proposed resolution (04/01):
Modify the third bullet of the third change ("A member m is accessible...") in the resolution of issue 9 to read "public, private, or protected" instead of "private or protected."
[Moved to DR at 4/02 meeting.]
The definition of "friend" in 11.4 class.friend says:
A friend of a class is a function or class that is not a member of the class but is permitted to use the private and protected member names from the class. ...A nested class, i.e. INNER in the example below, is a member of class OUTER. The sentence above states that it cannot be a friend. I think this is a mistake.
class OUTER {
class INNER;
friend class INNER;
class INNER {};
};
Proposed resolution (04/01):
Change the first sentence of 11.4 class.friend as follows:
A friend of a class is a function or class that isnot a member of the class but is allowedgiven permission to use the private and protected member names from the class.The name of a friend is not in the scope of the class, and the friend is not called with the member access operators (5.2.5 expr.ref) unless it is a member of another class.A class specifies its friends, if any, by way of friend declarations. Such declarations give special access rights to the friends, but they do not make the nominated friends members of the befriending class.
[Voted into WP at October 2004 meeting.]
We consider it not unreasonable to do the following
class A {
protected:
void g();
};
class B : public A {
public:
using A::g; // B::g is a public synonym for A::g
};
class C: public A {
void foo();
};
void C::foo() {
B b;
b.g();
}
However the EDG front-end does not like and gives the error
#410-D: protected function "A::g" is not accessible through a "B" pointer or object
b.g();
^
Steve Adamczyk: The error in this case is due to 11.5 class.protected of the standard, which is an additional check on top of the other access checking. When that section says "a protected nonstatic member function ... of a base class" it doesn't indicate whether the fact that there is a using-declaration is relevant. I'd say the current wording taken at face value would suggest that the error is correct -- the function is protected, even if the using-declaration for it makes it accessible as a public function. But I'm quite sure the wording in 11.5 class.protected was written before using-declarations were invented and has not been reviewed since for consistency with that addition.
Notes from April 2003 meeting:
We agreed that the example should be allowed.
Proposed resolution (April 2003, revised October 2003):
Change 11.5 class.protected paragraph 1 from
When a friend or a member function of a derived class references a protected nonstatic member function or protected nonstatic data member of a base class, an access check applies in addition to those described earlier in clause 11 class.access. [Footnote: This additional check does not apply to other members, e.g. static data members or enumerator member constants.] Except when forming a pointer to member (5.3.1 expr.unary.op), the access must be through a pointer to, reference to, or object of the derived class itself (or any class derived from that class (5.2.5 expr.ref). If the access is to form a pointer